Hercules Inc. Site - Fish and Wildlife Impact Analysis ... · Table 13 Fish Community...

FISH AND WILDLIFE IMPACT ANALYSIS STEP IIC INVESTIGATION REPORT

DYNO NOBEL SITE PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Prepared for:

Ashland Incorporated Dyno Nobel North America 500 Hercules Road 161 Ulster Ave Wilmington, Delaware 19808-1599 Ulster Park, New York 12487

Prepared by:

URS Corporation 335 Commerce Drive Fort Washington, PA 19034 April 12, 2011

URS

Port Ewen, New York Table of Contents

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acronyms .........................................................................................................................................v

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... vii

1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................1

1.1 FWIA Step IIC Study Objectives ..................................................................................2

1.2 Report Outline ................................................................................................................2

2.0 Site Background and Ecological Setting.................................................................................4

2.1 Site History ....................................................................................................................4

2.2 Ecological Setting ..........................................................................................................5

2.2.1 SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex .........................................................................5

2.2.2 Active Plant Area ...............................................................................................5

3.0 Ecological Conceptual Site Model ..........................................................................................6

3.1 SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex .....................................................................................6

3.1.1 Contaminant Sources and Migration Pathways .................................................7

3.1.2 Ecological Exposure Pathways ..........................................................................8

3.2 Active Plant Area ...........................................................................................................9

3.2.1 Contaminant Sources and Migration Pathways ...............................................10

3.2.2 Ecological Exposure Pathways ........................................................................10

4.0 SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex Investigations ....................................................................12

4.1 Sediment Quality Triad (SQT) Investigation ...............................................................12

4.1.1 Study Design ....................................................................................................13

4.1.2 Sampling Approach .........................................................................................15

4.1.3 Results ..............................................................................................................18

4.2 Downstream Sediment Characterization ......................................................................21


4.2.2 Results ..............................................................................................................22

4.3 Surface Water Investigation .........................................................................................23


4.3.2 Results ..............................................................................................................24

4.4 Fish Community Evaluation ........................................................................................24


4.4.2 Results ..............................................................................................................25

4.5 Biological Tissue Sampling .........................................................................................25


4.5.2 Results ..............................................................................................................28

5.0 Active Plant Area Investigations ..........................................................................................30

5.1 Terrestrial Bioaccumulation Evaluation ......................................................................30


5.1.2 Results ..............................................................................................................33


ii

6.0 Additional Media Characterization .......................................................................................35

6.1 SWMU 35 Surficial Soil Sampling..............................................................................35


6.1.2 Results ..............................................................................................................35

6.2 Site Drainage Sediment Characterization ....................................................................36


6.2.2 Results ..............................................................................................................36

7.0 Exposure Evaluation Approach ............................................................................................37

7.1 SWMU 1/22 Exposure Evaluation...............................................................................37

7.1.1 Benthic Invertebrate Community Exposure Assessment .................................37

7.1.2 Fish Community Exposure Assessment...........................................................43

7.1.3 Semi-Aquatic Wildlife Exposure Assessment .................................................44

7.2 Active Plant Area Exposure Evaluation ......................................................................47

7.2.1 Terrestrial Wildlife Exposure Assessment.......................................................48

8.0 SWMU 1/22 Exposure Evaluation and Risk Characterization .............................................50

8.1 Benthic Invertebrate Community Exposure.................................................................50

8.1.1 Sediment Quality Triad Exposure Evaluation .................................................50

8.1.2 Weight-of-Evidence Sediment Quality Triad Assessment ..............................56

8.2 Fish Community Exposure ..........................................................................................60

8.2.1 Surface Water Direct Contact Exposure ..........................................................60

8.2.2 Community Evaluation ....................................................................................61

8.2.3 Mercury Tissue Residue Evaluation ................................................................61

8.3 Semi-Aquatic Wildlife Exposure .................................................................................62

8.3.1 Maximum Area Use .........................................................................................62

8.3.2 Adjusted Area Use ...........................................................................................63

8.4 Risk Characterization ...................................................................................................64

8.4.1 Benthic Invertebrate Community .....................................................................64

8.4.2 Fish Community...............................................................................................65

8.4.3 Semi-Aquatic Wildlife Community .................................................................65

9.0 Active Plant Exposure Evaluation ........................................................................................67

9.1 Terrestrial Wildlife Exposure – Northern Grids ..........................................................67

9.2 Terrestrial Wildlife Exposure – Southern Grids ..........................................................68

9.3 Terrestrial Wildlife Exposure – Northern and Southern Grids ....................................68

9.3.1 Maximum Area Use .........................................................................................68

9.3.2 Adjusted Area Use ...........................................................................................69


10.0 Uncertainty Analysis .............................................................................................................72

10.1.1 Sampling Density .............................................................................................72

10.1.2 Data Quality .....................................................................................................72

10.2.1 Toxicity of Metals Mixtures ............................................................................73

10.2.2 Mercury-Selenium Antagonism .......................................................................73

10.2.3 Identification of Causal Relationships in Sediment Toxicity Testing .............74

10.2.4 Metal Bioavailability .......................................................................................75


iii

10.2.5 Selection of Receptors: ....................................................................................75

10.2.6 Area Use Factors ..............................................................................................75

10.2.7 Evaluation of Population- and Community-Level Effects...............................76


10.4 Summary of Uncertainty Analysis ...............................................................................77

11.0 Conclusions and Recommendations .....................................................................................78

11.1 SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex ...................................................................................78

11.2 Active Plant Area .........................................................................................................79

11.3 Additional Site Characterizations ................................................................................80

12.0 References .............................................................................................................................81

TABLES

Table 1 Summary of Near-Bottom Surface Water Quality Parameters – SQT Stations

Table 2 Summary of Sediment Analytical Results for Target Metals – SQT Stations

Table 3 Pearson Correlation Matrix of Sediment Target Metals Concentrations – SWMU

1/22 Wetland Complex

Table 4 Summary of Detected Constituents in Sediment – Reference SQT Stations

Table 5 Sediment VOC/SVOC Analyses – PE-SD-SQT-03

Table 6 Sediment Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbon Analysis – PE-SD-SQT-03

Table 7 Summary of June Benthic Invertebrate Community Analyses – SQT Stations

Table 8 Summary of October Benthic Invertebrate Community Analyses – SQT Stations

Table 9 Summary of Toxicity Testing Endpoints – 42-Day Hyalella azteca Test

Table 10 Summary of Toxicity Testing Endpoints – Chronic Chironomus riparius Test

Table 11 Summary of Sediment Analytical Results – Downstream SWMU 1/22 Wetland

Complex Stations

Table 12 Summary of Surface Water Analytical Results – SWMU 1/22 and Reference

Stations

Table 13 Fish Community Presence/Absence Survey Results – SWMU 1/22 Wetland

Complex

Table 14 Summary of Benthic Invertebrate Tissue Analyses – SWMU 1/22 and Reference

Stations

Table 15 Summary of Fish Tissue Analyses – SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex

Table 16 Summary of Small Mammal Tissue Analyses – Active Plant Area

Table 17 Summary of Earthworm Tissue Analyses – Active Plant Area

Table 18 Summary of Soil Analyses – Active Plant Area

Table 19 Summary of Soil Analyses – SWMU 35 Perimeter

Table 20 Relative Weight of Sediment Quality Triad Lines of Evidence

Table 21 Weight-of-Evidence Framework to Classify Benthic Invertebrate Community

Impacts

Table 22 Summary of Severe Effect Level Quotients for Target Metals – SQT Stations

Table 23 Benthic Community Metric Calculations – SQT Stations

Table 24 Summary of Benthic Community Metric Statistical Comparisons – SQT Stations

Table 25 Biological Assessment Profile – SQT Stations


iv

Table 26 Designation of Response Categories – SQT Weight-of-Evidence Evaluation

Table 27 Benthic Community Impact Classifications – SQT Weight-of-Evidence

Evaluation

Table 28 Summary of Semi-Aquatic Wildlife Exposure – SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex

Table 29 Summary of Terrestrial Wildlife Exposure – Northern Plant Grids

Table 30 Summary of Terrestrial Wildlife Exposure – Southern Plant Grids

Table 31 Summary of Terrestrial Wildlife Exposure – Northern and Southern Plant Grids

FIGURES

Figure 1 Site Location Map

Figure 2 Ecological Conceptual Site Model

Figure 3 SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex Sampling Locations

Figure 4 Reference Wetland Sampling Locations

Figure 5 Sediment Quality Triad Sampling Results – SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex

Figure 6 Downstream Sediment Sampling Results – SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex

Figure 7 Percent Abundance of Benthic Taxa in Market Basket Tissue Composite Samples

Figure 8 Non-Depurated Benthic Invertebrate Tissue Concentrations Along A Gradient of

Sediment Concentrations – SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex

Figure 9 Fish Tissue Concentrations by Sampling Reach – SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex

Figure 10 Active Plant Area Sampling Locations

Figure 11 Small Mammal Tissue Concentrations by Sampling Grid – Active Plant Area

Figure 12 Non-Depurated Earthworm Tissue Concentrations Along A Gradient of Sediment

Concentrations – Active Plant Area

Figure 13 SWMU 35 Perimeter Soil Sampling Locations

Figure 14 Site Drainage Features Sediment Sampling Results

Figure 15 SWMU 1/22 Wildlife Exposure Area

Figure 16 Benthic Invertebrate Community Metrics – SQT Stations

Figure 17 Biological Assessment Profile – SQT Stations

Figure 18 Hyalella azteca Sediment Toxicity Test Results – Day 42 Survival

Figure 19 Hyalella azteca Sediment Toxicity Test Results – Day 42 Biomass

Figure 20 Hyalella azteca Sediment Toxicity Test Results – Day 42 Juvenile Production Per

Female

Figure 21 Chironomus riparius Sediment Toxicity Test Results – Day 10 Survival

Figure 22 Chironomus riparius Sediment Toxicity Test Results – Day 10 Biomass

Figure 23 Chironomus riparius Sediment Toxicity Test Results – Emergence

Figure 24 Methyl Mercury Fish Tissue Residue Evaluation

APPENDICES

Appendix A FWIA Correspondence

Appendix B Sediment Toxicity Testing Reports

Appendix C Summary of Analytical Data

Appendix D Dose Rate Model Description

Appendix E Dose Rate Model Exposure Calculations

Appendix F URS Data Validation Reports

Port Ewen, New York Acronyms

v

ACRONYMS

ANOVA Analysis of Variance

AOC Area of Concern

AUF Area Use Factor

BAP Biological Assessment Profile

BW Body Weight

CMS Corrective Measures Study

COPECs Constituents of Potential Ecological Concern

DF Dietary Fraction

DFWMR Division of Fish, Wildlife, and Marine Resources

ECSM Ecological Conceptual Site Model

EDDs Estimated Daily Doses

EPCs Exposure Point Concentrations

EPH Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons

EPT Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera

FWIA Fish and Wildlife Impact Analysis

GPS Global Positioning System

HBI Hilsenhoff Biotic Index

HQs Hazard Quotients

HSD Honestly Significant Difference

ICP_MS Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry

IR Ingestion Rate

LCP License to Collect or Possess

LEL Lowest Effects Level

LER Low Effect Residue

LOAELs Low Observable Adverse Effect Levels

LOE Line of Evidence

MADEP Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection

MS/SD Matrix Spike/Spike Duplicate

NABS North American Benthic Society

NAVD88 North American Vertical Datum of 1988

NCO Non-chironomid and oligochaete

NER No Effect Residue

NOAELs No Observable Adverse Effect Levels

NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

SEL Severe Effects Level

SEL-Q Severe Effect Level Quotient

SOPs Standard Operating Procedures

SQGs Sediment Quality Guidelines

SQT Sediment Quality Triad

SVOC Semi-volatile Organic Compound

Port Ewen, New York Acronyms

vi

SWQS Surface Water Quality Standards

TAL Target Analyte List

TCL Target Compound List

TOC Total Organic Carbon

TRVs Toxicity Reference Values

UCL95 95 Percent Upper Confidence Limit

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

VOC Volatile Organic Compound

Port Ewen, New York Executive Summary

vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This document presents the findings of the New York State Department of Environmental

Conservation (NYSDEC) Fish and Wildlife Impact Analysis (FWIA) Step IIC

Investigations conducted at the Dyno Nobel Port Ewen Site (Site) located in Port Ewen,

New York. The overall purpose of the FWIA Step IIC investigations was to collect

adequate and representative data to assess potential ecological impacts to support the

establishment of site remedial objectives for consideration in the Corrective Measures

Study (CMS) developed for the Site.

Two separate ecological exposure areas, based upon cover type, habitat value, probability

of receptor use, and frequency of disturbance were evaluated for the purposes of the

FWIA Step IIC investigation:

� Solid Waste Management Unit (SWMU) 1/22 Wetland Complex: Wetland and

successional forest area to the east of the railroad tracks; and

� Active Plant Area: Industrial cover type includes the Active Plant Area to the

west of the railroad tracks.

Ecological investigations in the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex were conducted to

evaluate potential ecological impacts associated with site-related metals in surface water,

sediment, and biological tissues. Specific investigation tasks completed in the SWMU

1/22 Wetland Complex as part of the Step IIC Investigation included:

� Sediment quality triad (SQT) investigation (i.e., invertebrate toxicity testing,

benthic community analyses and sediment chemistry);

� Surface water characterization;

� Fish community evaluation; and

� Biological tissue sampling.

The results of investigations conducted in the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex support the

following conclusions regarding potential ecological exposure and risk:

� The SQT weight-of-evidence evaluation indicated that impacts to benthic

invertebrate communities occurred at stations adjacent to SWMU 22 that

contained the greatest concentrations of target metals in sediments; impacts to

benthic invertebrate communities decreased with increasing distance from

SWMU 22;

� The incidence of significant lethal and sublethal effects on benthic test organisms

in sediment toxicity tests were most consistent with concentration gradients of

selenium and lead;

� Levels of target metals in surface water were generally below surface water

criteria; therefore, exposure of fish and other aquatic life to target metals in

surface water is not likely to result in adverse community-level effects; and

Port Ewen, New York Executive Summary

viii

� Potential risks to wildlife exposed to target metals were limited to receptors that

forage exclusively within the exposure area; the potential for adverse effects was

greatest for tree swallow, however, the estimation of the dose to tree swallow was

highly uncertain.

The findings of the exposure evaluation for the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex provide

adequate and representative data for the development of preliminary sediment remedial

goals for the protection of ecological receptors. The weight-of-evidence evaluation of

SQT investigations may be used to derive preliminary sediment remedial goals for the

protection of benthic invertebrate communities; dose rate models based on site-specific

sediment-to-biota bioaccumulation relationships may be used to derive preliminary

remedial goals for the protection of semi-aquatic wildlife. These preliminary sediment

remedial goals may be used to modify the current CMS to include pathway elimination

for sediments exceeding preliminary remedial goals derived for benthic invertebrate

communities and assure that exposure point concentrations in residual sediments do not

exceed preliminary remedial goals derived for wildlife.

Investigations in the Active Plant Area were designed to evaluate potential terrestrial

bioaccumulation and wildlife ingestion pathways for site-related metals in soils. Co-

located biological tissue samples (small mammal and earthworm) and soil samples were

analyzed to evaluate potential ingestion pathways for terrestrial wildlife foraging at the

margins of the Active Plant Area.

The exposure evaluation in the Active Plant Area indicated that exposure to selenium

from the consumption of earthworms and small mammal represents the greatest potential

risk to terrestrial wildlife receptors. Potential risks associated with wildlife exposure to

selenium were greatest in the northern portion of the Site (grids N1 and N3), which is

associated with burning areas used to combust off-specification and waste materials.

Bioaccumulation of selenium from soil to biological tissues was highly variable and

uncertain. As a result, bioaccumulation relationships derived from site-specific data are

not reliable for developing preliminary remedial goals for soil. Further understanding of

selenium bioaccumulation and toxicity are needed prior to making informed remedial

decisions regarding selenium exposure to wildlife.

In addition to the investigations in SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex and the Active Plant

Area, concentrations of site-related metals were further characterized in soil and

sediments in areas of the Site that lack existing data. Metal concentrations in sediment

were characterized in two drainage features that traverse the Active Plant Area and

concentrations of target metals were characterized in sediments downstream of the

SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex. Additional characterization of soils at the perimeter of

SWMU 35 was conducted to evaluate the potential migration of metals to adjacent

surficial soils.

Port Ewen, New York Introduction

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This document presents the findings of the New York State Department of Environmental

Conservation (NYSDEC) Fish and Wildlife Impact Analysis (FWIA) Step IIC

Investigations conducted at the Dyno Nobel Port Ewen Site (Site) located in Port Ewen,

New York (Figure 1). Ecological investigations have been on-going at the Site since

2007 as part of the NYSDEC FWIA process. The overall objective of the FWIA process

at the Site is to assess potential ecological impacts for the establishment of remedial

objectives and the ultimate remedial actions outlined in the Corrective Measures Study

(CMS), as defined in NYSDEC Subpart 375-6: Remedial Program Soil Clean-up

Objectives and the draft NYSDEC Remediation Program Guidance (November 2009).

The FWIA investigation was conducted in accordance with the NYSDEC Fish and

Wildlife Impact Analysis for Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites guidance document

(NYSDEC, 1994). The scope of the investigations documented in this report was

consistent with Step IIC of the FWIA guidance, which analyses the toxic effects of

contaminants with identified pathways to fish and wildlife resources. Steps I, IIA, and

IIB of the FWIA process for the Site have been documented in previous submittals to

NYSDEC. An Ecological Evaluation Site Description Report (Site Description Report),

which included Step I and components of Step IIA of the FWIA guidance, was

previously submitted to NYSDEC Division of Fish, Wildlife, and Marine Resources

(DFWMR) in December 2007 (URS, 2007). An FWIA Step IIB Report (Step IIB

Report) was submitted in April 2009.

The FWIA Step IIC Report documents investigations conducted at the Site in accordance

with the Fish and Wildlife Impact Analysis Step IIC Work Plan (Work Plan) that received

conditional approval from the NYSDEC DFWMR on April 15, 2010 (URS, 2010). The

scope of work for Step IIC investigations was developed based on the FWIA Step IIB

Report (Step IIB Report) and subsequent correspondence with NYSDEC DFWMR that

culminated in the approval of the Work Plan.

Following the approval of the Work Plan, the implementation of FWIA Step IIC field

investigations and the subsequent data evaluation phase leading to the development of

this report were conducted in coordination and consultation with NYSDEC DFWMR.

Key milestones and correspondence documenting the coordination of field investigation

and data evaluation efforts since the approval of the Work Plan include:

� May 13, 2010: Site walk with NYSDEC DFWMR to evaluate proposed sampling

stations and candidate reference sampling areas;

� May 26, 2010: Memorandum from URS to NYSDEC documenting modifications

to the sampling program presented in the Work Plan;

� June 17, 2010: Meeting at the Site with NYSDEC during the field investigation;

meeting minutes approved July 30, 2010;

� July 9, 2010: Memorandum from EHS Support to NYSDEC characterizing the

results of sediment analysis for station SQT-03 as proposed in the Work Plan;

� September, 15, 2010: Meeting at NYSDEC offices to review preliminary data

from Step IIC investigations; meeting minutes approved October, 8, 2010;


2

� January 3, 2011: Memorandum from URS to NYSDEC documenting the results

of sediment sampling downstream of the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex;

� January 25, 2011: Conference call with NYSDEC to discuss the results of the

sediment sampling effort downstream of the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex;

� February 23, 2011: Meeting at NYSDEC offices to review the preliminary

conclusions of the Step IIC data evaluation; meeting minutes approved March 16,

2011;

� March 4, 11, and 18, 2011: Conference calls with NYSDEC DFWMR to discuss

the approach for FWIA data evaluation.

Memoranda and meeting summaries documenting discussions with NYSDEC regarding

the FWIA process are included as Appendix A of the report.

1.1 FWIA Step IIC Study Objectives

The purpose of FWIA Step IIC investigations was to collect adequate and representative

data to assess potential ecological impacts at the Site. FWIA Step IIC investigations

were intended to satisfy the following study objectives:

� Evaluate potential impacts to sediment-dwelling invertebrate communities in the

SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex based on a Sediment Quality Triad (SQT)

approach;

� Evaluate potential impacts to aquatic communities exposed to site-related metals

in surface water in the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex;

� Evaluate potential impacts to wildlife foraging in the SWMU 1/22 Wetland

Complex based on the bioconcentration/bioaccumulation of site-related metals in

benthic invertebrate and fish prey;

� Evaluate potential impacts to wildlife foraging on terrestrial prey at the margins of

the Active Plant Area based on the bioaccumulation of site-related metals in small

mammal and earthworm tissue; and

� Characterize concentrations of site-related metals in surficial sediments and soils

in specific areas identified by DFWMR that lack existing data.

1.2 Report Outline

The FWIA Step IIC Report is organized into the following sections:

� Section 2: Site Background and Ecological Setting

� Section 3: Ecological Conceptual Site Model

� Section 4: SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex Investigations

� Section 5: Active Plant Investigations

� Section 6: Additional Media Characterization

� Section 7: Exposure Evaluation Approach


3

� Section 8: SWMU 1/22 Exposure Evaluation and Risk Characterization

� Section 9: Active Plant Exposure Evaluation

� Section 10: Uncertainty Analysis

� Section 11: Conclusions and Recommendations

� Section 12: References

Port Ewen, New York Site Background and Ecological Setting

4

2.0 SITE BACKGROUND AND ECOLOGICAL SETTING

The Dyno Nobel facility is located at 161 Ulster Avenue, Ulster Park, New York,

approximately one mile south of the village of Port Ewen in Ulster County. As shown on

Figure 1, the Site is approximately 1.5 miles west of the Hudson River and is situated

along the eastern base of Hussey Hill.

The Site is located in the Central Hudson subzone of the Hudson Valley ecozone as

defined by Reschke (1990) and Edinger (2002). This subzone extends along the Hudson

River and is bordered by the Taconic Highlands ecozone to the east and the Appalachian

Plateau ecozone to the west. The Shawangunk Hills subzone also lies within the Hudson

Valley ecozone, to the west of the Site.

Most of the Site is at an approximate elevation of 160 feet1; however, Hussey Hill rises to

an elevation of approximately 760 feet at a roughly 1.5:1 slope, along the western border

of the Site.

2.1 Site History

The Site is an active manufacturing facility that currently produces electric detonators.

Historically, the Site has been involved with production of various explosives and related

materials since 1912. The plant was originally constructed by Brewster Explosives

Company, sold to Aetna Explosives Company in 1915, and then subsequently sold to

Hercules Incorporated in 1922. Hercules Incorporated sold the plant to IRECO,

Incorporated in 1985; IRECO was renamed Dyno Nobel, Inc. in 1993 (Eckenfelder,

2000). The manufacturing of explosives at the Site continued through each ownership

transfer.

Remedial investigations have been conducted at the Site since the early 1990s under the

oversight of both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and NYSDEC.

Data collected as part of these investigations and the CMS were used to evaluate

ecological exposure at the Site. Key milestones in the remedial investigation of the Site

include:

� August 1994: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facility

Assessment finalized (Eckenfelder, 1994);

� July 2000: RCRA Facility Investigation Report (Eckenfelder/Brown and

Caldwell, 1999) approved by NYSDEC;

� December 2000: CMS submitted to NYSDEC (Eckenfelder, 2000);

� October 2005: Supplement to CMS submitted to NYSDEC (HydroQual, 2005);

and

� September 2006: Revisions to CMS screening criteria submitted to NYSDEC

(HydroQual, 2006).

The FWIA process was initiated at the Site in 2007 to address potential ecological

exposures to site-related constituents, which had not been included as part of previous

1 All elevations are in North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88).

Port Ewen, New York Site Background and Ecological Setting

5

remedial investigations or the CMS. This request followed NYSDEC review of the

revised CMS dated September 2006 (HydroQual, 2006).

2.2 Ecological Setting

Two separate ecological exposure areas, based upon cover type, habitat value, probability

of receptor use, and frequency of disturbance were evaluated for the purposes of this

FWIA:

� SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex: Wetland and successional forest area to the east

of the railroad tracks; and

� Active Plant Area: Industrial cover type includes the Active Plant Area to the

west of the railroad tracks.

The following sections provide a brief description of the ecological setting of the two

ecological exposure areas identified for the Site. Further detail regarding fish and

wildlife resources in these areas was provided in the Step IIB Report (URS, 2009).

2.2.1 SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex

The SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex is a common reedgrass (Phragmites australis)-

dominated marsh on the eastern side of the railroad tracks that intersect the Site. This

wetland complex drains generally to the north to an unnamed tributary of Rondout Creek;

near the downstream extent of the Site, hydrology in the wetland has been altered by

beaver activity. An open water area is located within the wetland (SWMU 1); the open

water area was used as a shooting pond during plant operations for underwater detonation

of off-specification explosives and process waste.

Portions of the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex have the potential to support permanent

aquatic communities. Perennial water is likely to exist in normal years north of the site

access road and is capable of supporting benthic invertebrate communities and limited

warmwater fish communities. Fish and wildlife resources likely forage within the

SWMU 1/22 wetland system. The hydrological connectivity of this area to downstream

fish and wildlife resources such as Rondout Creek increases its habitat value. Limiting

factors associated with the habitat value of SWMU 1/22 include the dominance of the

invasive species Phragmites, which provides poor habitat for wildlife relative to wetlands

with more diverse vegetative communities.

2.2.2 Active Plant Area

The Active Plant Area is primarily characterized as an industrial cover type. This portion

of the Site provides limited overall habitat value due to the regular disturbance by Site

activities from facility operations to the maintenance (mowing) of vegetation. Potential

ecological exposure is likely associated with wildlife that may occasionally move into the

margins of the industrial cover type to forage from adjacent habitats. Drainage from the

Active Plant Area of the Site is generally from west to east. Two drainages originate at

the base of the slope along the western side of the Site and traverse the active portion of

the Site towards the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex.

Port Ewen, New York Ecological Conceptual Site Model

6

3.0 ECOLOGICAL CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL

An ecological conceptual site model (ECSM) was previously developed in the FWIA

Step IIB Report to identify potentially complete exposure pathways and potential

receptors that may warrant further ecological evaluation. The ECSM has been further

refined based on comments received from NYSDEC on the Step IIB report (comment

letter dated December 10, 2009 in Appendix A) and observations made during the

implementation of FWIA Step IIC investigations.

The ECSM describes potential contaminant migration and ecological exposure pathways

for the two ecological exposure areas evaluation in the FWIA: the SWMU 1/22 Wetland

Complex and the Active Plant Area. The ECSM consists of the following components:

� Contaminant sources and migration pathways: Identified sources of

contamination with potentially complete migration pathways to ecological

exposure areas;

� Ecological exposure pathways: Identified ecological receptors and exposure

pathways for those receptors; and

� Assessment and measurement endpoints: Assessment endpoints are explicit

statements of ecological resources (entities) and attributes of those entities that are

important to protect (USEPA, 1998). Measurement endpoints represent

quantifiable ecological characteristics that can be measured, interpreted, and

related to ecological resources chosen as assessment endpoints.

Potential contaminants in site media associated with SWMUs and AOCs are primarily

associated with elevated concentrations of inorganic (metal) constituents. Previous

environmental investigations of site media indicate that mercury, arsenic, and lead are the

primary metals of concern associated with the Site. Other metals evaluated in previous

investigations include: aluminum, antimony, barium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt,

copper, selenium, silver, and zinc. The Step IIB Report and subsequent Work Plan

identified the following target metals for investigation in the two ecological exposure

areas:

� SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex: cadmium, copper, lead, mercury (total and

methyl), selenium, and zinc; and

� Active Plant Area: antimony, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt,

copper, lead, mercury, selenium, silver, zinc.

3.1 SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex

The ECSM developed for the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex is illustrated in Figure 2

and described in the following sections.


7

3.1.1 Contaminant Sources and Migration Pathways

The primary sources of contaminants to the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex are the

SWMUs located within and adjacent to the wetland. SWMU 22 is a former landfill

located near the center of the wetland complex (Figure 3); waste material disposed in this

landfill represents a potential source of contaminants to the adjacent wetland. SWMU 1

is a former shooting pond used to detonate off-specification explosives and process

waste. Underwater detonation of explosives and waste materials represents a potential

source of contaminants to the surrounding areas. SWMUs located within the Active

Plant Area of the Site represent secondary sources of contaminants to the SWMU 1/22

Wetland Complex.

As illustrated in the ECSM presented in Figure 2, contaminants may migrate from

potential source areas to the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex through one or more of the

following potential pathways and associated release and transport mechanisms:

� Transport via surface water erosion/runoff;

� Dissolution and leaching into groundwater;

� Migration of dissolved contaminants in shallow groundwater to sediment and

surface water in adjacent wetlands and/or surface water bodies; and

� Trophic transfer of contaminants incorporated in the aquatic food chain.

Contaminants may be transported to the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex via surface

erosion. A primary migration pathway is likely surface erosion and transport of site-

related metals from SWMUs within the wetland complex. A second potential migration

pathway to the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex is stormwater transport of particle-sorbed

metals from the Active Plant Area to the downgradient wetlands areas via two

intermittent drainage ditches. Metals may be sorbed to particles transported by

stormwater and deposited in wetland sediments; disturbance of these sediments may

subsequently re-suspend metals into surface water and re-deposit sediments locally in

other areas of the wetland.

Groundwater represents a potential migration pathway to the SWMU 1/22 Wetland

Complex; however, groundwater transport is expected to be minimal. The evaluation of

the leachability of soil samples from multiple SWMUs indicated that metals exhibited a

low degree of leachability from soils at most locations (Eckenfelder 2000). Furthermore,

groundwater investigations at the Site concluded that the migration of metals from the

active portion of the Site is limited by low permeability silty clays and clay deposits

(Eckenfelder 2000). The investigations demonstrated that the Wetland Complex

associated with the former shooting pond (SWMU 1) is the local discharge point for the

limited groundwater flow from the Site (Eckenfelder 2000).

Trophic transfer is also a potential migration pathway for contaminants within the

SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex. Contaminants may bioaccumulate in the tissues of biota

in direct contact with potentially impacted exposure media. Contaminants in the tissues

of lower trophic organisms may be transferred to upper trophic consumers through

ingestion pathways.


8

3.1.2 Ecological Exposure Pathways

Pathways by which ecological receptors using the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex may

be exposed to contaminants are illustrated in Figure 2. Potential ecological receptors and

routes of exposure are described below.

Potential Ecological Receptors

Because the FWIA cannot specifically evaluate the potential for adverse effects to each

species that may be present and potentially exposed in the SWMU 1/22 Wetland

Complex, receptors were selected to represent broader groups of organisms and those that

are of high ecological value.

The SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex potentially supports several categories of ecological

receptors including:

� Emergent vegetation;

� Benthic macroinvertebrate community;

� Fish community;

� Omnivorous mammals: raccoon (Procyon lotor);

� Aerial insectivorous mammals: Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis);

� Piscivorous mammals: mink (Mustela vison);

� Invertivorous birds: mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos);

� Semi-aquatic insectivorous birds: tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor);

� Semi-aquatic insectivorous birds: Kentucky warbler (Oporonis formosus); and

� Piscivorous birds: great blue heron (Ardea herodias).

Indiana bat (state and federal endangered) and Kentucky warbler (state protected) were

included as potential receptors in the Wetland Complex evaluation at the request of

NYSDEC given their status as protected species (NYSDEC correspondence February 13,

2008 and June 16, 2008). As stated to NYSDEC in previous correspondence, neither

species is likely to forage in the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex with regularity. Indiana

bat and Kentucky warbler are conservatively included in the ECSM because potential

exposure cannot be definitively dismissed; however, potential risk to these receptors will

be characterized in the context of the probability of their occurrence in the exposure area.

Potential exposure to Indiana bat was quantitatively evaluated in the FWIA because no

other mammalian aerial insectivores were included as receptors; potential exposure to

Kentucky warbler was evaluated based on quantitative evaluations of exposure to tree

swallow. Kentucky warbler, if present, is most likely to forage by gleaning and hawking

terrestrial invertebrates (e.g., insects, caterpillars, spiders, moths) in leaf litter and on

vegetation (McDonald, 1998); however, to evaluate potential exposure to warblers that

may have a dietary component of aquatic-based adult insects, it was conservatively

assumed that warblers would obtain a similar dose to tree swallow. This assumption

likely overestimates the actual dose to Kentucky warbler, considering its preference for

invertebrates in terrestrial habitats.


9

Potential Exposure Routes

The routes by which receptors may be exposed to contaminants in the SWMU 1/22

Wetland Complex are illustrated in the ECSM (Figure 2). Primary exposure pathways

that will be quantitatively evaluated are illustrated by solid circles in the ECSM and

described below for each receptor category:

� Benthic invertebrates: direct contact;

� Fish community: direct contact;

� Invertivorous wildlife: direct ingestion of surface water and contaminated biota

and incidental ingestion of sediment (mallard only);

� Aerial insectivorous wildlife: direct ingestion of contaminated biota (Indiana bat

and tree swallow only);

� Piscivorous wildlife: direct ingestion of surface water and contaminated biota

(mink, belted kingfisher, and great blue heron only); and

� Omnivorous wildlife: direct ingestion of contaminated surface water and

contaminated biota and incidental ingestion of sediment (raccoon only).

Emergent vegetation was not quantitatively evaluated in the FWIA Step IIC

Investigation. As described in Section 2.2.1, the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex is

characterized as a monotypic stand of Phragmites. The dominance of Phragmites within

the wetland is consistent with the physical disturbance of the wetland area associated

with the creation of the SWMU 22 landfill and SWMU 1 Shooting Pond.

3.2 Active Plant Area

The ECSM developed for the Active Plant Area system is illustrated in Figure 2 and

described in the following sections.


10

3.2.1 Contaminant Sources and Migration Pathways

The primary sources of contaminants within the Active Plant Area are the SWMUs and

AOCs identified in the CMS (Eckenfelder 2000; HydroQual 2005; HydroQual 2006). As

illustrated in the ECSM (Figure 2), contaminants may migrate from these potential source

areas to adjacent soils primarily via surface migration. Bioaccumulation of metals in

wildlife through consumption of food/prey (i.e., plants and soil invertebrates) exposed to

metals in site media is also a potential migration pathway.

3.2.2 Ecological Exposure Pathways

As described in the Step IIB Report, ecological exposure pathways within the Active

Plant Area are limited by the poor to low habitat value associated with SWMUs and

AOCs (URS, 2009). However, potential wildlife exposure pathways were included as

part the FWIA Step IIC investigations to address NYSDEC concerns regarding potential

ecological exposure to wildlife that may occasionally forage at the margins of the Active

Plant Area.

Pathways by which ecological receptors using the margins of the Active Plant Area may

be exposed to contaminants are illustrated in Figure 2. Potential ecological receptors and

routes of exposure are described below.

Potential Ecological Receptors

In the Active Plant Area, ecological receptors were selected to evaluate potential

exposure to wildlife that may forage at the margins of the facility. Receptor categories

were selected to represent low-level secondary consumers and top-tier predators to

provide a range of potential wildlife exposure. Low-level secondary consumers were

represented by invertivorous birds and mammals that forage primarily on earthworms:

� Small invertivorous mammals: Short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda); and

� Invertivorous birds: American robin (Turdus migratorius).

Top-tier predators were represented by carnivorous birds and mammals that forage

primarily on low-level secondary consumers:

� Carnivorous birds: Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis); and

� Carnivorous mammals: Red fox (Vulpes vulpes).

Potential Exposure Routes

The routes by which ecological receptors may be exposed to contaminants in the Active

Plant Area are illustrated in the ECSM (Figure 2). Primary exposure pathways that will

be quantitatively evaluated in the FWIA are illustrated by solid circles in the ECSM and

described below for each receptor category:

� Invertivorous wildlife: direct ingestion of contaminated biota and incidental

ingestion of soil;

� Carnivorous mammals: direct ingestion of contaminated biota and incidental

ingestion of soil; and


11

� Carnivorous birds: direct ingestion of contaminated biota.

Port Ewen, New York SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex Investigations

12

4.0 SWMU 1/22 WETLAND COMPLEX INVESTIGATIONS

Consistent with the approved Work Plan (URS, 2010), further investigations were

conducted in the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex to evaluate potential ecological impacts

associated with site-specific metals. Ecological investigations in the SWMU 1/22

Wetland Complex were designed to evaluate potential direct contact exposure to

sediment and surface water and wildlife exposure through ingestion pathways. Specific

investigation tasks completed in the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex as part of the Step

IIC Investigation included:

� SQT investigation (i.e., invertebrate toxicity testing, benthic community analyses

and sediment chemistry);

� Surface water characterization;

� Fish community evaluation; and

� Biological tissue sampling.

Biological samples from the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex were collected and

processed in accordance with the procedures detailed in the Work Plan under a project-

specific NYSDEC License to Collect or Possess (LCP) permit for the lawful collection of

samples for scientific purposes (Permit #1643, effective date 5/28/10). The following

sections provide detailed descriptions of these investigations and a summary of

investigation results. Ecological exposure evaluations conducted based on the data

collected as part of Step IIC investigations are presented in Sections 7.0 and 8.0.

4.1 Sediment Quality Triad (SQT) Investigation

An SQT investigation was conducted to evaluate potential risk to sediment-dwelling

invertebrates in the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex. The SQT is a weight-of-evidence

approach that evaluates sediment quality by integrating spatially- and temporally-

matched sediment chemistry, biological, and toxicological information (Long and

Chapman 1985; Chapman et al. 1987). The SQT investigation for the SWMU 1/22

Wetland Complex and associated reference area consisted of the following lines-of-

evidence:

� Chemical analyses of bulk sediment;

� Benthic invertebrate community analysis; and

� Toxicity testing using bulk sediment.


13

The overall objective of the SQT studies conducted in the SWMU 1/22 Wetland

Complex was to incorporate site-specific ecological effects information to determine the

concentrations of site-related metals in sediments that may result in unacceptable risk to

benthic invertebrate receptors. Benthic invertebrate community analysis and sediment

toxicity testing provide site-specific information regarding potential ecological effects to

benthic invertebrates; the integration of these lines of evidence supplements traditional

sediment chemistry data to provide a more relevant, site-specific assessment of potential

ecological impacts. The findings of the SQT studies were integrated into a weight-of-

evidence evaluation that may be used to support further assessment or remedial decision-

making. The study design, sampling approach, and summary of results for SQT studies

in the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex are described in the following sections.

4.1.1 Study Design

The reliability of the SQT approach is dependent on the collection of representative

spatially- and temporally-matched sediment chemistry, benthic invertebrate community,

and sediment toxicity data at both study and reference stations. Because these datasets

were integrated into a weight-of-evidence evaluation, consistency in data collection was

essential for comparability among the various lines of evidence. The following sections

provide an overview of the SQT study design, including the selection and distribution of

SQT sampling stations.

Selection of SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex SQT Stations

A key objective in determining the number and distribution of SQT stations was to ensure

that the spatial coverage of samples reflected a gradient of metals concentrations in

sediments within the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex. A distribution of sampling stations

across a range of metals concentrations was necessary to elucidate reliable exposure-

response relationships between sediment metals concentrations and ecological effects

where they may exist. Reliable exposure-response relationships are necessary to identify

a range of potential ecological effects thresholds that may be considered in further

assessment or remedial decision making.

Sediment chemistry data collected in previous investigations were used to guide the

selection of prospective SQT sampling stations within the SWMU 1/22 Wetland

Complex. The evaluation of historical data conservatively assumed that concentrations

of detected metals were bioavailable and potentially toxic to benthic invertebrates. As

presented in the Work Plan (URS, 2010), existing surficial sediment data were rank-

ordered for the target metals: cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, selenium, and zinc. Eight

(8) prospective SQT stations were identified in the Work Plan, with direction from

DFWMR (April 15, 2010 comment letter), based on concentration gradients.


14

The final selection of prospective stations for SQT studies was determined based on a

habitat evaluation/reconnaissance survey conducted May 11 – 12, 2010 and subsequent

discussions with DFWMR during a site walk on May 13, 2010. Based on the

reconnaissance survey and site walk, two (2) SQT stations were relocated due to limited

inundation or habitat for benthic invertebrates (Appendix A; May 26, 2010 URS

memorandum). An additional station (PE-SQT-03) was re-located approximately 75 feet

to the southwest during the June 2010 sampling event following the identification of

organic constituents in surficial sediment; this station was not included in SQT studies

due to the potential confounding influence of non-metal stressors in interpreting

community analyses and sediment toxicity testing. Figure 3 illustrates the locations of

the eight (8) SQT stations, as sampled during the investigation.

Selection of Reference SQT Stations

Three (3) reference stations were selected for inclusion in SQT studies to evaluate

potential impacts to benthic invertebrate communities associated with sediment metals

concentrations. During the May 2010 reconnaissance survey, candidate reference

wetlands having similar habitat characteristics to the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex and

no known or potential sources of contamination beyond regional background were

identified. General selection criteria for candidate reference wetlands included:

� No known or potential sources of contamination beyond regional background;

� Located in a wetland consistent with NYSDEC Class 3 wetland classification

and dominated by common reedgrass (Phragmites australis);

� Substrate characteristics (grain size, organic content, etc.) similar to the

SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex;

� Comparable water depths and inundation periodicity to the SWMU 1/22

Wetland Complex; and

� Accessible for sampling.

The candidate reference wetland selected for comparison with the SWMU 1/22 Wetland

Complex in SQT studies was identified during a site walk with DFWMR on May 13,

2010. The selected reference wetland is located approximately five (5) miles south of the

Site on conservation land owned by Scenic Hudson, Inc. (Figure 4). Similar to the

SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex, the selected reference wetland is a Phragmites-

dominated wetland with limited open water habitat. The reference wetland complex is

located in a rural setting with no known or potential sources of contamination beyond

regional background. Based on the comparability of the reference wetland to the SWMU

1/22 Wetland Complex and the limited potential for contaminant stressors beyond

regional background, DFWMR agreed that the Scenic Hudson property was an

appropriate reference wetland for SQT studies.

Three (3) SQT stations were located within the reference wetland to represent a similar

range of habitat conditions observed in the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex (Figure 4).

Stations were placed on a gradient of inundation, with SQT-9 representing areas of

limited inundation (water depth ~ 1 foot) with dense Phragmites and SQT-11

representing deeper habitats (water depth ~ 3 feet) with less Phragmites and greater open

water habitat.


15

4.1.2 Sampling Approach

A systematic sampling approach was used to collect sediment samples to support the

multiple lines-of-evidence evaluated in the SQT investigation. The following sediment

samples were collected at each SQT station:

� Composite sediment samples of cores from 0 – 1 foot for toxicity testing and

chemical analyses; and

� Discrete grab samples (n = 3) for benthic invertebrate community analyses.

At each SQT station, samples for chemical analyses were collected as subsamples of the

sediment volume collected for toxicity testing. Disturbance of sediment cores collected

for toxicity testing were minimized to preserve in situ redox conditions to the greatest

extent practicable. To this end, a non-homogenized composite sample of minimally

disturbed sediment was collected at each SQT location and submitted to EnviroSystems,

Inc. (Hampton, NH) for toxicity testing. At the toxicity testing laboratory, sediments

were homogenized in a nitrogen atmosphere to minimize oxidation of the sediments. An

aliquot of the homogenized sample was collected and submitted to Test America, Inc.

(Pittsburgh, PA) for chemical analysis; the remaining volume of the homogenized sample

was used for toxicity testing.

Discrete samples for benthic invertebrate community analysis were collected

immediately adjacent to locations where composite sediment cores were collected for

toxicity testing and chemical analysis. As described in detail in Section 4.5.1, additional

bulk sediment was collected from adjacent areas, as needed, to obtain sufficient sample

mass of benthic invertebrate tissue. At each SQT station, near-bottom surface water

parameters, including temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, and specific conductivity were

measured in situ with a YSI 6920 multi-parameter water quality meter. Upon completion

of SQT sampling, the approximate center of each sampling station was recorded using a

sub-meter global positioning system (GPS) unit (Trimble GeoXH).

The detailed sampling approach for the sediment collection to support the three lines-of-

evidence evaluated in the SQT is summarized in the following sections; standard

operating procedures (SOPs) for bulk sediment and benthic community sample collection

are provided in Appendices A and B, respectively of the Work Plan (URS, 2010).

Bulk Sediment Analyses

Bulk sediment samples were collected at SQT stations to provide representative metal

concentrations for comparison to sediment quality guidelines (SQGs) and to evaluate the

results of benthic community and sediment toxicity studies.

At the direction of DFWMR, sediment samples for chemical and toxicological analyses

were collected from the 0 – 12 inch sediment interval. As was noted in the Work Plan

(URS, 2010), this depth interval is not specified in the NYSDEC Technical Guidance for

Screening Contaminated Sediments (NYSDEC 1999) and is deeper than the 0 to 10 – 15

centimeter (3.9 to 5.9 inch) depth interval recommended in USEPA Methods for the

Collection, Storage, and Manipulation of Sediments for Chemical and Toxicological

Analyses (USEPA, 2001). This sample interval is deeper than the typical bioactive zone

of benthic invertebrates (typically 0 – 6 inches), particularly in reducing wetland

sediments.


16

As described in the preceding section, sediment samples for chemical analyses at SQT

stations were subsampled from composite samples collected for sediment toxicity testing.

Multiple sediment cores for the composite sample were collected from 0 – 1 foot with 3-

inch diameter polycarbonate plastic cores. Large woody debris and vegetation that could

be removed with minimal disturbance to the sediment core were removed and the

individual sediment cores were composited in an opaque, laboratory-supplied two-gallon

container with zero headspace; composite samples were not homogenized in the field.

Composite samples were submitted to EnviroSystems for sediment toxicity testing where

the samples were homogenized to similar color and texture under a nitrogen environment.

An aliquot of the homogenized sample was collected at EnviroSystems and submitted to

Test America for chemical and physical analyses.

The sample aliquot submitted to Test America for SQT stations was analyzed for target

metals specified by DFWMR in its correspondence to Dyno Nobel dated June 25, 2009:

cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, selenium, and zinc; additional sediment analyses

included total organic carbon (TOC) and grain size. For reference SQT stations (SQT-09

through SQT-11), sediment samples were analyzed for a broader suite of analytical

parameters to adequately characterize potential chemical stressors other than metals that

may influence toxicity testing or benthic community results. The broader analytical suite

included: target analyte list (TAL) metals, target compound list (TCL) volatile and semi-

volatile organic compounds, and TCL pesticides; additional sediment analyses at

reference locations included TOC and grain size distribution.

Benthic Invertebrate Community Analyses

The incorporation of benthic invertebrate community data into the SQT investigation

provides an empirical dataset for in situ evaluations of potential toxicity. Benthic

invertebrates are ideal bioindicators because they: 1) are abundant across a broad array

of sediment types, 2) are relatively sedentary, completing most or all of their life cycle in

the same microhabitat, 3) respond to the cumulative effects of various stressors having

differing magnitudes and periods of exposure, and 4) integrate both the effects of

stressors and the population compensatory mechanisms evolved over time to survive in a

highly variable and stressful environment.

Benthic community sampling and analyses were performed at SQT stations from June 14

– 23, 2010, concurrent with sediment chemistry and toxicity testing studies; a second

round of benthic community sampling was conducted from October 27 – 29, 2010 to

provide an additional season of community data.

Three (3) discrete sediment samples for benthic community analysis were collected at

each SQT station in undisturbed areas immediately adjacent to the location of cores

collected for chemical and toxicological analyses. At the direction of DFWMR, benthic

community samples were collected with a petite Ponar sampler. Samples for benthic

community analysis were field-sieved in 500-µm bucket sieves to remove fine-grained

sediments; large vegetation and woody debris were rinsed over the bucket sieve and

discarded. Benthic invertebrates and residual material in the bucket sieve were

transferred to clean sampling containers and preserved in 70 percent ethyl alcohol for

transport to the EcoAnalysts, Inc. (Boise, ID) for taxonomic identification.


17

In the laboratory, benthic community samples were processed consistent with the

NYSDEC (2009) Standard Operating Procedure: Biological Monitoring of Surface

Waters in New York State and USEPA guidance (Barbour et al., 1999). Benthic

community samples were subsampled based on a random 100-organism sub-count

according to procedures outline in the Work Plan (URS, 2010). Organisms were

identified to the lowest practicable taxon, consistent with the target taxonomic resolution

recommended in NYSDEC (2009).

Laboratory quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures for the processing and

identification of benthic invertebrate samples were consistent with or greater than the

approach used in NYSDEC (2009) and Barbour et al. (1999). Twenty (20) percent of the

residual material from the sorted subsample was re-examined and any organisms missed

by the sorter were enumerated to ensure a maximum of 10 percent error in sorting

efficiency. At least 10 percent of identified samples were re-identified by a North

American Benthic Society (NABS)-certified taxonomist to ensure a maximum of 10

percent error in taxonomic determinations.

Sediment Toxicity Testing

Sediment toxicity testing provides an ex situ evaluation of toxicity by exposing

laboratory-reared organisms to sediment from SQT stations under controlled laboratory

conditions. Sediment samples for toxicity testing consisted of a composite of sediment

cores to obtain at least two (2) gallons of sediment required to implement both toxicity

testing protocols and to provide an aliquot for chemical analysis, as previously described.

At the direction of DFWMR, sediment samples for toxicity testing were collected from

the 0 – 12 inch sediment interval. As noted in the Work Plan, this depth interval is

deeper than the interval recommended in USEPA (2000) Methods for Measuring the

Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-Associated Contaminants with Freshwater

Invertebrates: Second Edition and USEPA (2001), which indicates that samples should

be collected from a depth that will represent expected exposure, typically the 0 to 2 – 15

centimeter (1 to 5.9 inch) depth interval.

As previously stated, the disturbance of sediment cores collected for toxicity testing was

minimized to preserve in situ redox conditions to the greatest extent practicable.

Sediment from core samples was composited, but not field-homogenized, in opaque,

laboratory-supplied containers and filled to zero headspace. The composite samples were

held at 4◦C and transported to the EnviroSystems as soon as practicable. In the

laboratory, sediments were homogenized and toxicity tests were set up in a nitrogen

atmosphere to minimize oxidation of the sediments.

The following chronic sediment toxicity tests were conducted on sediments from SQT

stations:

� 42-day Hyalella azteca Test for Measuring the Effects of Sediment-Associated

Contaminants on Survival, Growth, and Reproduction (USEPA Method 100.4;

USEPA, 2000); and


18

� 28-day Chironomus riparius test evaluating survival, growth, and emergence

consistent with Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

(OECD) Guideline 218 (OECD, 2004)2.

The toxicity testing laboratory performed the designated tests on SQT and control

sediments in accordance with test protocols established in USEPA (2000) and OECD

(2004). Laboratory reports detailing the specific procedures of each test are provided in

Appendix B. Overlying water quality was monitored for temperature, dissolved oxygen,

pH, hardness, alkalinity, conductivity, and ammonia at the frequency specified for each

test. At the conclusion of the tests, the following endpoints were reported:

� 42-day Hyalella azteca: mean survival (Day 28, Day 35, and Day 42),growth as

mean dry weight (Day 28 and Day 42), growth as mean dry biomass (Day 28 and

Day 42), juvenile production on Day 35 and Day 42 (per surviving amphipod and

per surviving female); and

� 28-day Chironomus riparius: mean survival – Day 10, growth (ash free dry

weight and ash free dry biomass), percent emergence and mean time to

emergence.

The performance of sediment toxicity testing was evaluated consistent with test protocols

provided in USEPA (2000) and OECD (2004). Test acceptability was based on the

performance of laboratory control samples through the duration of the test. As described

in the reports provided in Appendix B, laboratory performance criteria were satisfied for

each endpoint evaluated in the 42-day Hyalella azteca and Chironomus riparius tests.

4.1.3 Results

The following sections summarize the results of the SQT studies conducted in the

SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex and reference wetland. An evaluation of benthic

invertebrate community exposure is based on the results summarized below is presented

in Section 8.1.

In-Situ Physio-Chemical Parameters

Table 1 presents near-bottom surface water quality parameters measured in situ during

the June 2010 SQT and October 2010 benthic community sampling events. Physical

descriptions of sediments observed at SQT stations are also provided in Table 1.

Bulk Sediment Analyses

The results of bulk sediment analyses of target metals at SQT stations are summarized in

Table 2 and presented in Figure 5. A summary of sediment analytical data is provided in

Appendix C. For reference, sample results are presented relative to NYSDEC sediment

criteria for metals (NYSDEC 1999). Sample results exceeding the lowest effect level

(LEL) are presented in bold; results exceeding the severe effects level (SEL) are shaded

and bold.

2 OECD Guideline 218 is the only standard method that could be identified for long term sediment toxicity testing

using Chironomus riparius, the test organism specified by DFWMR in April 15, 2010 comments on the draft work

plan. Standard C. riparius test methods have not been established and fully validated for life cycle exposures

previously requested by DFWMR.


19

In general, greater concentrations of target metals were observed at SQT stations in close

proximity to SWMU 22 (SQT-03 through SQT-06) relative to stations with increasing

distance from SWMU 22. Maximum concentrations of target metals were associated

with SQT-03 (selenium), SQT-05 (lead), or SQT-06 (cadmium, copper, mercury, and

zinc). Concentrations of cadmium, copper, and zinc, were generally lower at stations

upstream of SWMU 1 (SQT-01 and SQT-02) when compared to stations downstream of

SWMU 22 (SQT-06 through SQT-08); concentrations of lead, mercury, and selenium at

upstream stations were generally comparable to or greater than concentrations at

downstream stations.

The co-occurrence of target metals in sediment at SQT stations within the SWMU 1/22

Wetland Complex was evaluated using a Pearson correlation analysis based on Shapiro-

Wilk normality testing of the underlying data distribution. Pearson correlation

coefficients (r) generated as the result of the analysis are presented as a matrix in Table 3.

Values of r can range from -1, indicating a perfect negative linear relationship between

variables to 0 indicating no relationship to 1, indicating a perfect positive linear

relationship. For the purposes of the analysis, r values less than -0.7 or greater than 0.7

were considered indicative of strong negative or positive linear relationships,

respectively.

As shown in Table 3, the strongest positive linear relationship was observed between

selenium and lead concentrations in sediment (r = 0.973) followed by the positive linear

relationship between cadmium and zinc (r = 0.88). Other strong positive linear

relationships were observed between sediment concentrations of copper with mercury,

cadmium, and zinc (r > 0.7). The results of the correlation analysis indicate positive

linear relationships between the concentrations of target metals, particularly lead and

selenium, in the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex.

Analyses of non-target metal constituents in sediments from reference SQT stations did

not indicate the presence of chemical stressors at concentrations that are likely to impact

benthic invertebrate communities. Table 4 presents detected constituents from TAL

metals, TCL VOC and SVOC, and TCL pesticide analyses conducted at the reference

stations; a complete summary of analytical results from reference SQT stations is

provided in Appendix C. As described in Section 4.1.2, these additional analyses were

conducted to evaluate whether chemical stressors were impacting benthic invertebrate

communities in the reference wetland. Five pesticides, three VOCs, and five SVOCs

were detected in sediments from at least one of the reference SQT stations (Table 4); 13

additional naturally-occurring TAL metals were also detected in reference wetland

sediments. Comparisons of these detected constituents to available sediment screening

criteria (NYSDEC, 1999), indicated only two slight exceedances for arsenic and

manganese; concentrations of detected organic constituents were below available criteria

(Table 4). Based on these results, impacts to benthic invertebrate communities in the

reference wetland due to chemical stressors are not likely. These findings confirm the

suitability of the reference wetland as a control for SQT studies designed to assess

potential impacts associated with site-specific metals.


20

An additional characterization of chemical constituents in sediments was conducted

during the June 2010 sampling event at the proposed location of SQT-03 in the SWMU

1/22 Wetland Complex. As previously discussed in Section 4.1.1, organic constituents

were noted in sediments at the proposed location of station SQT-03. A sample of these

sediments (PE-SD-SQT-03) was collected and analyzed to characterize the nature of the

organic constituents. Samples were initially analyzed for VOCs (Method 8260B),

SVOCs (8270B), total sulfides (Method 9030B/9034), and sulfate (Method 9056A).

Additional characterization of organic constituents was conducted using Extractable

Petroleum Hydrocarbons (EPH) analysis based on the Massachusetts Department of

Environmental Protection (MADEP) method (Test America, Westfield, MA).

The results of these analyses indicated minor detections of VOCs and no detections of

SVOCs in sample PE-SD-SQT-03; however, the presence of other petroleum

hydrocarbon compounds was confirmed by the EPH analysis. Carbon disulfide, 1,2,4-

trichlorobenzene, and toluene were detected at low concentrations relative to the

reporting limit (Table 5). No SVOC compounds were detected in the sample; however,

elevated detections limits (650 µg/kg to 17,000 µg/kg) were noted in the test. EPH

analyses indicated elevated concentrations of aromatic and aliphatic compounds (Table

6), with the presence of aromatic compounds indicating that these compounds are likely

petrogenic in nature. C11- C22 aromatics (comprising of polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons and other undefined ring structures) were detected at a combined

concentration of 2,600 mg/kg. Heavy end aliphatic compounds were also detected at an

elevated concentration of 13,000 mg/kg. The results of these analyses confirm the

presence of non-metal stressors in the vicinity of PE-SD-SQT-03 and served as the basis

for excluding this station from the SQT evaluation. As previously stated, station SQT-03

was relocated approximately 75 feet to the southwest of sample PE-SD-SQT-03.

Benthic Invertebrate Community Analyses

The following sections describe the benthic invertebrate communities sampled at SQT

stations during sampling events in June and October 2010. The approach for integrating

benthic invertebrate community analyses results into a weight-of-evidence evaluation of

benthic community exposure is presented in Section 8.1.

June 2010

A total of 99 distinct macroinvertebrate taxa were identified in 33 samples collected from

SQT stations in June 2010. Of the 99 taxa identified, 89 were collected from SQT

stations from the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex, and 39 taxa were collected from

reference SQT stations (Table 7). Among the SWMU 1/22 SQT samples, 39 distinct taxa

were identified in more than 10 percent of the samples. Two taxa, the non-biting midge

Chironomus sp. and the freshwater isopod Caecidotea sp., were identified in more than

50 percent of the samples. Caecidotea sp. was the most commonly observed taxon,

appearing in 18 of the 24 SWMU 1/22 SQT samples. The distribution and high relative

abundance of Caecidotea sp. is consistent with stations characterized by substrates

containing a surficial layer of Phragmites root mat; Caecidotea sp.is a detritivore that is

commonly found in high abundance in dense stands of vegetation with large quantities of

decaying coarse particulate organic matter (King and Richardson, 2007). Invertebrate

density at SWMU 1/22 SQT stations ranged from 1,391 organisms per m2

(SQT-06,

Replicate C) to 52,195 organisms per m2

(SQT-05, Replicate B).


21

Among the reference SQT samples, 39 distinct taxa were identified in more than 10

percent of the samples. The non-biting midges Ablabesmyia peleensis and Chironomus

sp., the gastropods Gyraulus sp. and Physa sp., the isopod Caecidotea sp., and the

amphipod Hyalella sp. were identified in more than 50 percent of the samples. Physa sp.

and Caecidotea sp. were the only taxa identified in all reference SQT samples. Densities

of invertebrates were generally lower at reference SQT stations relative to SWMU 1/22

SQT stations, ranging from 826 organisms per m2 (SQT-10, Replicate B) to 4,609

organisms per m2

(SQT-11, Replicate A).

October 2010

Community samples collected in October 2010 were relatively depauperate of benthic

invertebrates. Densities ranged from 0 organisms per m2

at SQT-03 (all three replicates),

SQT-06 (Replicate A), and SQT-11 (Replicate C) to 5,204 organisms per m2

at SQT-02

(Replicate C) (Table 8). A total of 72 distinct taxa were identified in 32 samples3

analyzed from SQT stations in October 2010. Sixty-four (64) of the 72 taxa identified

were collected from SWMU 1/22 SQT stations, and 25 taxa were collected from

reference SQT stations. Among the SWMU 1/22 SQT samples, 13 distinct taxa were

identified in more than 10 percent of the samples; no taxon was present in more than 50

percent of the samples. Caecidotea sp. was the most commonly observed taxon,

appearing in 9 of the 23 SWMU 1/22 SQT samples. Among the reference SQT samples,

25 distinct taxa were identified in more than 10 percent of the samples. Caecidotea sp.

was the most commonly observed taxon, appearing in six of nine samples.


Summaries of toxicity testing endpoints for the 42-day Hyalella azteca and Chironomus

riparius toxicity tests are presented in Tables 9 and 10, respectively. Significant toxicity

endpoints are illustrated in Figure 5 for each SQT station within the SWMU 1/22

Wetland Complex. The approach for integrating sediment toxicity results into a weight-

of-evidence evaluation of benthic community exposure is presented in Section 7.1.1.

4.2 Downstream Sediment Characterization

Based on the results of the June 2010 bulk sediment analyses, additional characterization

of target metals in sediment downstream of the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex was

conducted on October 28, 2010 and November 11, 2010. This additional sediment

sampling was requested by NYSDEC to further characterize the concentrations of metals,

particularly mercury, that were elevated in sediments at station SQT-08, the farthest

downstream SQT station (Figure 5). The following sections describe the sampling

approach and summarize the results of the downstream sediment characterization.

3 The taxonomic laboratory inadvertently composited two replicates (B and C) from SQT-01 during the October

2010 sampling event. The composited sample was processed and analyzed, resulting in data for 32 of 33 samples

collected.


22


Based on discussions with NYSDEC during a conference call on September 29, 2010,

four sediment stations (PE-DNS-SD-01 through PE-DNS-SD-04) were established

downstream of the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex (Figure 6). Sediment depositional

features in the vicinity of the stations were targeted for sample collection based on field

observations. Samples were collected at each station from 0 – 1.0 feet using 2-inch

diameter butyrate plastic core liners. At the request of NYSDEC, collection of deeper

sediment intervals was attempted at each station; however, recovery of deeper material

(1.0 -1.5 feet) was only accomplished at station PE-SD-DNS-01. Samples were analyzed

for target metals including cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, selenium, and zinc;

additional sediment characterization included total organic carbon (TOC) content and

grain size distribution.

4.2.2 Results

Analytical results of the downstream sediment sampling are provided in Table 11 and

posted on Figure 6. For reference, sample results are presented relative to NYSDEC

sediment criteria for metals (NYSDEC, 1999). Sample results exceeding the LEL are

presented in bold; results exceeding the SEL are shaded and bold.

The results of the downstream sediment sampling indicate elevated concentrations of

metals, particularly copper and mercury, in the surface interval at the first two

downstream stations (PE-DNS-SD-01 and PE-DNS-SD-02). The deeper sediment

interval at PE-DNS-SD-01 generally contained comparable concentrations to the surface

interval for most metals, with the exception of mercury, which was elevated in the deeper

interval relative to the surface interval. Concentrations of metals at PE-DNS-SD-01 and

PE-DNS-SD-02 were generally consistent with concentrations observed in the surface

interval at station SQT-08. Concentrations of metals, particularly copper and mercury,

were substantially lower in sediments at downstream stations PE-DNS-SD-03 and PE-

DNS-SD-04 relative to upstream stations.


23

The distribution of sediment metals in depositional areas downstream of the SWMU 1/22

Wetland Complex is generally consistent with channel morphology and flow conditions.

The reach from SQT-08 to PE-DNS-SD-02 is characterized by a broad channel with

limited stream velocity that is consistent with past beaver activity that impeded stream

flow. As a result of limited flow, this reach represents a sediment depositional zone

where fine-grained sediments have accumulated over time; the distribution of metals in

sediments is typically associated with finer-grained sediments. The stream channel

becomes narrower and the stream banks become more defined at downstream stations

PE-DNS-SD-03 and PE-DNS-SD-04. Channel morphology in this downstream reach

becomes more variable, with small riffle complexes becoming evident. Due to the

change in channel morphology, sediment depositional areas at stations PE-DNS-SD-03

and PE-DNS-SD-04 are limited to the channel margins; the thickness of sediment

depositional features is also reduced at these stations relative to the thickness of sediment

deposition at upstream stations PE-DNS-SD-01 and PE-DNS-SD-02. Greater

concentrations of metals observed at upstream stations PE-DNS-SD-01 and PE-DNS-SD-

02 are consistent with a more extensive zone of sediment deposition immediately

downstream of the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex; lower metals concentrations at

stations PE-DNS-SD-03 and PE-DNS-SD-04 are consistent with more limited sediment

deposition downstream.

4.3 Surface Water Investigation

Surface water sampling was conducted within the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex and at

reference stations concurrent with SQT sampling. Surface water data were intended to

support the following data objectives:

� Evaluation of potential ecological exposure to aquatic receptors, particularly the

fish community; and

� Calculation of exposure point concentrations (EPCs) for surface water for input

into dose rate models for wildlife receptors.

The following sections describe the surface water sampling approach and summarize the

results of surface water analyses.


Surface water samples were collected from six (6) stations within the SWMU 1/22

Wetland Complex as illustrated in Figure 3. Three (3) additional surface water samples

were collected at reference SQT stations. Surface water samples were collected from mid

water column depth using grab sampling procedures detailed in the Work Plan (URS,

2010). To minimize the disturbance of bottom sediments when collecting surface water

samples, sampling stations were approached from downcurrent and the sample was

collected upcurrent of the physical location of the person collecting the sample.


24

Unfiltered and filtered surface water samples were submitted to Test America for

analysis. Surface water samples were field-filtered using a 0.45 µm capsule filter.

Unfiltered samples were analyzed for total hardness, total suspended solids, and target

metals: cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, selenium, and zinc; filtered samples were

analyzed for the list of target metals. Surface water parameters, including temperature,

pH, dissolved oxygen, and specific conductivity were measured in situ with a YSI 6920

multi-parameter water quality meter. The location of surface water stations were

recorded in the field using a Trimble GeoXH sub-meter GPS unit.

4.3.2 Results

Four (4) out of six (6) target metals were detected in filtered and unfiltered samples

collected within the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex (Table 12). Detected metals

included copper, lead, selenium, and zinc; concentrations of cadmium and mercury were

below detection in all filtered and unfiltered samples.

Based on the results of the surface water analyses, target metals are not detected at

concentrations likely to result in adverse chronic effects to aquatic life. Filtered surface

water results for detected constituents were evaluated relative to hardness-adjusted

chronic NYSDEC Surface Water Quality Standards (SWQS, Section 703.5). SWQS

values for hardness-dependent metals (cadmium, copper, lead, zinc, etc.) were based on

the lowest and most conservative hardness value from the SWMU 1/22 Wetland

Complex (127 mg/L). As presented in Table 12, concentrations of metals in filtered

samples did not exceed NYSDEC SWQS. These findings indicate that chronic exposure

to metals concentrations in surface water within the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex are

not likely to result in adverse effects to aquatic life.

4.4 Fish Community Evaluation

A presence/absence fish community survey was conducted to qualitatively evaluate

potential fish community resources available in the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex and

adjacent upstream and downstream areas. The following sections describe the sampling

approach and summarize the findings of the fish community evaluation.


A qualitative, presence/absence fisheries survey was conducted utilizing methodologies

consistent with those outlined in NYSDEC (2009). As illustrated in Figure 3, three (3)

sampling reaches were established within and adjacent to the SWMU 1/22 Wetland

Complex:

� Upstream of the site to the south of the plant entrance road;

� Within the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex; and

� Downstream of the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex.


25

Each reach was sampled by electrofishing, using a Smith-Root LR-24 backpack

electrofishing unit for approximately 20 – 25 minutes (1215 – 1450 seconds) of

electroshocking time. At the request of DFWMR, the upstream reach was sampled for an

additional 23 minutes (1375 seconds) of electroshocking time to target upper trophic

species (i.e., largemouth bass). Captured fish were held in a live well and evaluated for

potential fish tissue sampling (See Section 4.5). Prior to release, captured fish were

identified to the lowest practicable taxon, typically species. Lengths and weights of fish

were recorded for the first 25 individuals of each taxon captured; remaining fish were

enumerated. Representative fish samples were retained for tissue analyses as described

further in Section 4.5.

4.4.2 Results

The results of the fish community presence/absence survey are summarized in Table 13.

Three (3) fish taxa were collected during the electrofishing effort in the three reaches

upstream, within, and downstream of the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex. Golden shiner

(Notemigonus crysoleucas) was the numerically dominant taxon collected in each of the

three reaches. One largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) was collected from the

upstream reach and six (6) American eel (Anguilla rostrata) were collected from the

downstream reach (Table 13).

4.5 Biological Tissue Sampling

Sampling and analysis of fish and benthic invertebrate tissues were conducted to provide

site-specific tissue data as an input into dose rate models to evaluate potential exposure to

wildlife consumers of these prey items. A secondary data objective was to evaluate

potential bioaccumulation relationships between tissue and relevant exposure media.


In accordance with the Work Plan (URS, 2010), biological tissue sampling was

conducted consistent with NYSDEC (2003) Procedures for Collection and Preparation

of Aquatic Biota for Contaminant Analysis, as the guidance was applicable to project

objectives. Tissue samples were collected concurrently with other investigations in the

SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex and reference areas. Benthic invertebrate tissue sampling

was conducted as part of SQT investigations described in Section 4.1; fish tissue

sampling was conducted as part of the fish community evaluation described in Section

4.4. Specific procedures relevant to the collection and analysis of each tissue type are

described in the following sections.


26

Benthic Invertebrate Tissue

As described in the Work Plan, the most abundant invertebrate taxon present in the

SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex (e.g., chironomids, oligochaetes, etc.) was targeted for

tissue analyses (URS, 2010). However, based on the findings of the May 2010

reconnaissance survey and the initial SQT sampling in June 2010, it was determined that

there was insufficient sample mass of any one individual taxon to obtain the mass

requirements for the selected analytical methods. To account for the limited invertebrate

samples mass recovered in sediment samples, the procedures for the collection and

analysis of benthic invertebrate tissue detailed in the Work Plan were modified as

follows:

� ‘Market Basket’ Composite Sample: The procedures for collecting benthic

invertebrate tissue samples at SQT stations were modified from a target taxon

approach to a ‘market basket’ approach. A ‘market basket’ sample is a composite

of all invertebrate taxa collected at a station, which provides a representative

sample of the invertebrate tissue that invertivorous wildlife may encounter when

foraging in sediments at a given SQT station.

� Reference Composite Sample: Insufficient benthic invertebrate sample mass was

recovered from ‘market basket’ composite samples collected in the reference

wetland. To obtain sufficient sample mass for analysis, ‘market basket’ samples

of benthic invertebrates from the three (3) reference stations were composited into

one representative reference sample.

� Analytical Method: The analytical methods proposed in the Work Plan required

approximately 2.5 grams of tissue. Despite the modifications to the sample

compositing procedures described above, attainment of the minimum sample

mass was not possible at all stations. Therefore, a modified analytical method

was proposed by Brooks Rand Laboratories (Seattle, WA) for samples with a

mass less than 1.5grams. The modified analytical method for low mass samples

used a shared nitric digestion and with analysis by inductively coupled plasma

mass spectrometry (ICP-MS).

These modifications to the benthic invertebrate sampling and analysis approach were

proposed to DFWMR during a June 17, 2010 meeting. DFWMR approved the proposed

modifications to the sampling approach during the meeting and subsequently approved

the modification to the analytical method in an email received on June 18, 2010 (M.

Crance, email communication 6/18/10 in Appendix A).

Samples for benthic invertebrate tissue analyses were collected from SQT stations after

sediment samples were collected to support toxicity testing and benthic community

evaluations. Sediment from undisturbed areas in close proximity to the SQT station was

collected and field-sieved in 500-µm bucket sieves to remove fine grained sediments.

The residual material retained in the bucket sieves was sorted in the field and visible

benthic invertebrates were removed using decontaminated tweezers. Benthic

invertebrates were composited to obtain sufficient tissue for analysis, as described above.

Sufficient sample mass was collected at each SQT station, with the exception of SQT-03;

field-sorting of residual material at SQT-03 did not yield any invertebrate sample mass.


27

Once the requisite mass of invertebrate tissue was obtained at each SQT station, the

composite invertebrate sample was rinsed with de-ionized water, placed in a clean,

laboratory-supplied sampling container, and frozen until shipment to Brooks Rand

Laboratories for analysis. Figure 7 illustrates the taxonomic composition of benthic

tissue composite samples submitted for analysis. At the direction of DFWMR in the

April 15, 2010 comment letter on the draft work plan, benthic invertebrate samples

collected for analyses were not depurated to excrete residual sediment from the gut tract

prior to analysis. Non-depurated benthic invertebrate tissue samples were analyzed for

target metals including: cadmium, copper, lead, total mercury, methylmercury, selenium,

and zinc. The mass of benthic invertebrate tissue samples submitted to the laboratory

was insufficient to quantify percent moisture; therefore, sample results were reported on a

wet weight basis.

Fish Tissue

Fish tissue sampling was conducted concurrently with the fish community evaluation

described in Section 4.4. As discussed in Section 4.4.1, fish community sampling

reaches were established upstream, downstream, and within the SWMU 1/22 Wetland

Complex. During the electrofishing effort at each station, captured fish were retained in a

live well and evaluated for potential tissue analyses.

As specified in the Work Plan, five (5) composite samples of forage fish and five (5)

individual samples of piscivorous fish were targeted at each of the three sampling reaches

established for the qualitative fish community evaluation (See Section 4.4). All fish

collected in the three sampling reaches were kept in the live well prior to sampling for

tissue analyses in order to select appropriate target species based on common

denominators amongst all stations. Target species for tissue analyses were selected with

concurrence from DFWMR (M. Crance, personal communication) based on the available

catch from all three reaches.

As discussed in Section 4.4.2, the results of the electrofishing effort yielded one forage

species (golden shiner) in each sampling reach. Piscivorous species were limited to

American eel in the downstream reach and largemouth bass in the upstream reach. Based

on the available catch, the following fish tissue samples were submitted for analysis with

concurrence from DFWMR:

Species Trophic

Status Upstream Site Downstream

Golden shiner

Notemigonus crysoleucas Forage

5

(composites)

5

(composites)

5

(composites)

American eel

Anguilla rostrata Piscivore

5

(individuals)

Largemouth bass

Micropterus salmoides Piscivore

1

(individual)


28

Fish tissue samples were processed consistent with NYSDEC (2003), as detailed in the

Work Plan (URS, 2010). Fish selected for tissue analysis were placed in a clean plastic

bag, labeled with the appropriate collection information. Samples were placed on ice

until the end of the sampling effort, when the samples were frozen. Samples were

shipped frozen on dry ice to Brooks Rand Laboratories under appropriate chain-of-

custody forms.

Fish tissue samples were analyzed for target metals including: cadmium, copper, lead,

total mercury, methylmercury, selenium, and zinc. In addition, percent moisture was

measured to facilitate conversion between wet weight and dry weight concentrations.

4.5.2 Results

The results of biological tissue sampling in the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex are

presented in the following section. The approach for using benthic invertebrate and fish

tissue to evaluate potential risks to semi-aquatic wildlife in the SWMU 1/22 Wetland

Complex is presented in the Section 7.1.3. Evaluation of semi-aquatic wildlife exposure

to metals in small mammal tissues is presented in Section 8.0.

Benthic Invertebrate Tissue

As described in the preceding section, concentrations of target metals were analyzed in

‘market basket’ composite samples of benthic invertebrates collected from SQT stations.

The results of the benthic invertebrate tissue analyses are presented in Table 14; a

complete summary of the analytical data is presented in Appendix C.

Relative to reference samples, concentrations of cadmium, copper, lead, total mercury,

methylmercury, selenium, and zinc were generally elevated in most samples from

SWMU 1/22 SQT samples (Figure 8). Although direct comparisons of tissue

concentrations between sampling stations are confounded by the varied composition of

the ‘market basket’ samples (Figure 7), relative comparisons were made to assess general

metal accumulation in benthic invertebrates available at each station. Benthic

invertebrate tissue concentrations were relatively low in samples from SQT-01, which

contained comparable concentrations to reference samples, with the exception of total

mercury. Bioaccumulation of total mercury was variable with sediment mercury

concentration, with the stations containing lowest (SQT-05) and greatest (SQT-06)

concentrations of mercury in sediments having comparable concentrations in benthic

invertebrate tissue samples. Methylmercury concentrations in benthic tissue samples

were comparable to or lower than the reference samples for all SQT stations, except

SQT-07.

Ratios of methylmercury to total mercury concentrations in benthic invertebrate tissue

samples ranged from 0.06 to 0.75 and generally decreased with increasing mercury

concentrations in sediments (Figure 8). Low methylmercury concentrations relative to

total mercury concentrations in tissues, particularly at higher sediment mercury

concentrations may be indicative of mercury adsorbed to sediment particles in the gut

tract of non-depurated samples.


29

Concentrations of target metals in non-depurated benthic invertebrate tissues were

evaluated relative to co-located sediment metal concentrations to assess sediment-

invertebrate bioaccumulation (Figure 8). Although strongly influenced by sample points

at elevated sediment and tissue concentrations, positive linear relationships (R2 > 0.8)

were of observed between tissue and sediment concentrations of cadmium, copper, and

lead. Relationships between tissue and sediment concentrations of total mercury,

selenium, and zinc were largely variable over the range of sediment concentrations.

Concentrations of methylmercury in tissue were generally consistent at five (5) of eight

(8) stations across a range of sediment total mercury concentrations; methylmercury

concentrations were variable with sediment concentrations in samples from the remaining

SQT stations.

Fish Tissue

Concentrations of target metals were analyzed in whole body fish tissue samples from

three sampling reaches upstream, within, and downstream of the SWMU 1/22 Wetland

Complex (Figure 3). The results of the fish tissue analyses are provided in Table 15 and

presented graphically by sampling reach and species in Figure 9; a summary of analytical

data for fish tissue analyses is presented in Appendix C.

The results of forage fish tissue analyses were assessed by reach to evaluate potential

spatial relationships in concentrations (Figure 9). Concentrations of selenium and

mercury (total and methyl4) in fish tissue increased with increasing distance from

upstream to downstream sampling reaches. Concentrations of cadmium and copper were

generally consistent between upstream and site reaches, but were elevated at the

downstream sampling reach. Concentrations of lead and zinc were elevated at the site

reach relative to upstream; however, concentrations in downstream samples were not

elevated relative to the upstream results.

A limited number of piscivorous fish samples were collected from the three sampling

reaches. Concentrations of cadmium and selenium in American eel samples collected in

the downstream reach were elevated relative to forage fish from the same reach (Figure

9). Concentrations of methylmercury, copper, and zinc were generally lower in

American eel samples when compared to forage fish. Concentrations of other target

metals in American eel were comparable to concentrations measured in forage fish.

Concentrations of target metals in the one largemouth bass sample collected in the

upstream reach were generally within the range of the error associated with mean forage

fish concentrations (Figure 9).

4 An average of 94 percent of total mercury concentrations in forage fish tissue and 87 percent of total mercury in

piscivorous fish tissue was present as methylmercury.

Port Ewen, New York Active Plant Area Investigations

30

5.0 ACTIVE PLANT AREA INVESTIGATIONS

At the request of DFWMR, several ecological investigations were conducted in the

Active Plant Area of the Site. Investigations in the Active Plant Area were designed to

evaluate potential terrestrial bioaccumulation and wildlife ingestion pathways. The

following sections provide details of these investigations.

5.1 Terrestrial Bioaccumulation Evaluation

At the request of DFWMR, co-located biological tissue and soil samples were collected

at the margins of the Active Plant Area to evaluate potential terrestrial bioaccumulation

and wildlife ingestion pathways for site-related metals. Samples of small mammal tissue,

earthworm tissue, and surficial soils were analyzed to provide site-specific tissue data to

represent exposure point concentrations for dose rate exposure models to evaluate

potential ingestion pathways for predators of small mammals and vermivorous wildlife.

Biological samples from the Active Plant Area were collected and processed in

accordance with the procedures detailed in the Work Plan under a project-specific

NYSDEC LCP permit for the lawful collection of samples for scientific purposes (Permit

#1643, effective date 5/28/10). The following sections describe the sampling approach

and summarize the analytical data.


Small mammal and earthworm tissue collections were spatially- and temporally- matched

with the collection of surficial soil samples in the six (6) sampling grids designated by

DFWMR (URS, 2010): three (3) grids near the northern extent of the Active Plant Area

and three (3) grids near the southern extent (Figure 10). Each sampling grid was

approximately one hectare in area. The sampling approach for the collection of

biological tissue and soil from designated sampling grids within the Active Plant Area is

summarized in the following sections; specific procedures relevant to the collection and

analysis of small mammal and earthworm tissue and soil samples are provided in the

Work Plan (URS, 2010).

Small Mammal Tissue

Eighty (80) Sherman traps were deployed on June 21, 2010 and retrieved on June 24,

2010. Traps were set in transects approximately within each designated sampling grid

(Figure 10). Transects were oriented relative to optimal small mammal habitat, biasing

areas that favor predatory small mammals (e.g., shrews), such as high grass or bushy

areas, along or under fallen logs, along visible trails, and/or along edge habitat within the

sampling grid. As directed by DFWMR, traps were not deployed within the boundaries

of SWMUs and/or AOCs or in areas of disturbance that lack ecological habitat (e.g.,

gravel or paved areas). The number of transects, number of traps per transect, and the

orientation of transects were customized to each sampling grid depending on habitat

availability and probability of trapping success. Traps were numbered (1 – 80) and the

orientation of traps along each transect was recorded; GPS positions were recorded at the

locations of small mammal traps at both ends of each transect.


31

The three (3) night sampling event resulted in a total effort of 240 trap-nights per

sampling grid (80 traps x 3 nights = 240 trap-nights) and 1440 total trap-nights for the

sampling effort (240 trap-nights/grid x 6 grids = 1440 total trap-nights). Traps were

baited with a mixture of bacon grease, peanut butter, and oats and checked in the early

morning and late afternoon. Animals captured in the traps were field-identified and

assigned an individual identification number, indicating the sampling grid, trap number,

and date/time of capture. Captured animals were either retained for tissue analysis or

released and the trap was re-set, re-baited, and returned to its position on the transect.

A total of five (5) small mammal samples were targeted for whole body tissue analyses in

each sampling grid. The Work Plan prioritized predatory small mammals, particularly

shrews (Blarina spp.), for tissue analyses (URS, 2010); however no predatory small

mammals were captured during the 1440 trap-night effort. The first five (5) specimens of

each small mammal taxon captured in each sampling grid were identified, sacrificed by

asphyxiation using dry ice, and retained in a freezer for potential tissue analysis. When

five (5) specimens of a given species were captured within a sampling grid, any

additional specimens of that species captured within the sampling grid were identified

and released. The location of capture, species, and age were recorded for each captured

animal; body length, body weight, and sex were recorded for each animal sacrificed for

tissue analysis.

At the end of the sampling effort, specimens from each sampling grid were inventoried

and the following target species were identified for tissue analysis:

Species Northern Grids Southern Grids

N1 N2 N3 S1 S2 S3

White-footed mouse

Peromyscus leucopus 5 5 2 2 2 0

Meadow Jumping Mouse

Zapus hudsonius 0 0 1 1 0 0

Meadow Vole

Microtus pennsylvanicus 0 0 2 1 0 1

Total: 5 5 5 5 2 1

Specimens selected for tissue analyses were frozen and shipped to Test America

Laboratories (Pittsburgh, PA) on dry ice. Whole body samples were processed and

analyzed for the 12 metal constituents of potential ecological concern (COPECs)

identified for the Active Plant Area in the Step IIB Report: antimony, arsenic, barium,

cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, selenium, silver, and zinc. Percent

moisture was measured for each sample to facilitate conversions between wet weight and

dry weight concentrations.


32

Earthworm Tissue and Surficial Soil

After the completion of small mammal trapping, representative samples of earthworm

tissue and soil were obtained on June 24 and 25, 2010. Earthworm tissue and soil

samples were collected from within each sampling grid using a composite sample design.

Five (5) composite earthworm tissue and composite soil samples were targeted from

quasi-randomly selected small mammal trapping locations within the sampling grid. As

stated in the Work Plan, the objective of the sampling design was to provide spatial

representation of earthworm tissue and soil samples within the trapping area, while

retaining randomization in the sampling design (URS, 2010).

As described in detail in the Work Plan, random number generation was used to identify

targeted earthworm tissue and soil sample locations from the 80 numbered small mammal

traps deployed within the each sampling grid. The locations of earthworm tissue and soil

samples identified by the random number generation were adjusted, as necessary, based

on the discretion of the field team leader if earthworms were not present in the soil or if

there was inadequate spatial coverage of the trapping area. Earthworm tissue and soil

sampling locations are illustrated in Figure 10.

Composite samples for earthworm tissue and soil consisted of subsamples from five (5)

sample points distributed around the randomly selected trap location as follows:

� �

�

� �

10 ft

10 ft

10 ft

10 ft

At each sample point, a decontaminated shovel was used to collect surficial samples (0 –

1 foot) from the five (5) soil sampling points illustrated in the above diagram. Aliquots

containing approximately equal volumes of each of the five (5) soil sampling points were

homogenized to similar color and texture. The homogenized soil composite were placed

in laboratory-supplied glassware and stored on ice for shipment to Test America

Laboratories (Pittsburgh, PA). Soil samples were analyzed for 12 site-specific metals

identified as COPECs in the Step IIB Report: antimony, arsenic, barium, cadmium,

chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, selenium, silver, and zinc. The position of the

center sampling point was recorded with Trimble GeoXH sub-meter GPS unit.


33

After the collection of the composite soil sample, composite earthworm samples were

collected from the five (5) sample points by digging, as necessary, with a decontaminated

shovel. Approximately equal masses of earthworms from each sample point were

composited until at least 15 – 20 total grams of tissue were obtained for standard metals

analyses (e.g., USEPA SW-846 6020 and 7471A). Once a sufficient sample mass was

collected, composite earthworm samples were rinsed in distilled/deionized water to

remove residual soil, padded dry, placed in clean sample jars. At the direction of

DFWMR, earthworm samples collected for metals analyses were not depurated to excrete

residual soil from the gut tract prior to analysis. Non-depurated samples were frozen and

shipped to Test America Laboratories (Pittsburgh, PA) for analysis. Earthworm samples

were analyzed for the 12 site-specific metal COPECs analyzed in soil and small

mammals.

5.1.2 Results

The following sections present the results of small mammal and earthworm tissue

sampling in the Active Plant Area. The approach for using small mammal tissue to

evaluate potential risks to small mammal predators in the Active Plant Area is presented

in the Section 7.2.1. Evaluation of terrestrial wildlife exposure to metals in small

mammal and earthworm tissues is presented in Section 9.0.

Small Mammal Tissue

Concentrations of site-related metals were analyzed in whole body tissue samples of the

three species of small mammals (meadow jumping mouse, meadow vole, and white-

footed mouse) captured during the June 2010 sampling event within the Active Plant

Area (Figure 10). The results of the small mammal tissue analyses are presented

graphically by sampling grid and species in Figure 11. Summary statistics of small

mammal tissue data are provided in Table 16; a complete summary of analytical data is

presented in Appendix C.

The results of tissue sampling indicated variable results for most metals by sampling grid,

with the exception of lead, selenium, and zinc. Elevated concentrations of lead and zinc

were observed in samples of white-footed mouse from grid N3 relative to other sampling

grids; grid N3 also contained greater concentrations of zinc in meadow vole and meadow

jumping mouse samples. Concentrations of selenium were also elevated in white-footed

mouse samples from grids N1 and N3 relative to other grids. Concentrations of other

metals in white-footed mouse did not differ substantially between grids; low samples

sizes limit spatial comparisons of metals concentrations in meadow jumping mouse and

meadow vole.

Earthworm Tissue

Site-specific metal concentrations were analyzed in non-depurated earthworm tissue from

co-located soil and earthworm sampling stations within the Active Plant Area (Figure

10). The results of the earthworm tissue analyses are presented relative to corresponding

soil concentrations in Figure 12. Summary statistics of earthworm tissue and

corresponding soil data are provided in Tables 17 and 18, respectively. Complete

summaries of analytical data for earthworm tissue and soil data are provided in Appendix

C.


34

Concentrations of target metals in earthworm tissues were evaluated relative to co-

located soil metal concentrations to assess soil-invertebrate bioaccumulation (Figure 12).

Based on non-depurated results, bioaccumulation was highly variable for all metals, with

the possible exception of copper and mercury. Concentrations of copper and mercury

generally increased in earthworm tissues with increasing soil concentrations. Uptake of

other metals was highly variable, with a wide range of concentrations observed in

earthworm tissues that were collected from stations with similar soil concentrations.

Some of the highest variability in bioaccumulation was observed in the relationship

between selenium concentrations in earthworms and soil. Selenium concentrations in

earthworms ranged from 4.5 to 197.9 mg/kg (dry weight) in soils containing 0.8 to 2.5

mg/kg of selenium.

Port Ewen, New York Additional Media Characterization

35

6.0 ADDITIONAL MEDIA CHARACTERIZATION

In addition to the investigations described in the preceding sections that were designed to

evaluate potential fish and wildlife impacts, NYSDEC requested further characterization

of metals concentrations in soil and sediments in specific areas of the site that lacked

existing data. The following sections describe the sampling conducted to characterize

surficial soils adjacent to SWMU 35 and sediments in the two drainages that traverse the

site and discharge to the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex.

6.1 SWMU 35 Surficial Soil Sampling

At the request of DFWMR, surficial soil sampling was conducted on June 18, 2010 at the

perimeter of SWMU 35, a former landfill that potentially contains explosive wastes.

Surficial soil samples were collected at the perimeter of SWMU 35 near the toe of

landfill slope to evaluate the potential migration of metals to surficial soils adjacent to

and downgradient of the landfill. As specified in the Work Plan, sampling was not

conducted within the boundary of SWMU 35 due to health and safety concerns

associated with sampling soils in landfills potentially containing explosive wastes (URS,

2010). The following sections describe the sampling approach and summarize the data

collected to characterize soils at the perimeter of SWMU 35.


Five (5) surficial soil samples were collected from the perimeter of SWMU 35 (Figure

13). Samples were collected from 0 - 1 foot using a hand auger. Samples were analyzed

for target metals including: antimony, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt,

copper, lead, mercury, selenium, silver, and zinc. Sampling locations adjacent to SWMU

35 were recorded with a sub-meter Trimble GeoXH GPS unit.

6.1.2 Results

A summary of SWMU 35 perimeter sampling results is provided in Table 19; individual

sample results are posted on Figure 13.

The results of soil sampling at the perimeter of SWMU 35 indicate that metals are not

migrating downgradient of the landfill and are not likely to result in adverse effects to

ecological receptors. As shown in Table 19, surficial soil concentrations of target metals

were low relative to available NYSDEC Soil Cleanup Objectives for the Protection of

Ecological Resources (Subpart 375-6) or the minimum USEPA Eco-SSL value (antimony

and cadmium only; USEPA, 2007a). Antimony, cadmium, and cobalt slightly exceeded

the soil screening criteria at one location for each metal. Antimony and cadmium

exceeded criteria at the southern-most location PE-35-SO-01 (Figure 13); the antimony

concentration at this station (0.31 mg/kg) was comparable to the minimum Eco-SSL

(0.27 mg/kg). The concentration of cobalt at PE-35-SO-04(17.1 mg/kg) was also

comparable to the minimum Eco-SSL (13 mg/kg). Based on the low concentrations of

metals relative to screening soil criteria, it is not likely that the SWMU 35 landfill is a

source of metals to downgradient surface soils. Furthermore, the limited exceedances of

Port Ewen, New York Additional Media Characterization

36

conservative soil screening criteria indicate that concentrations of metals in soils at the

perimeter of SWMU 35 are not likely to result in adverse effects to ecological receptors.

6.2 Site Drainage Sediment Characterization

At the request of DFWMR, sediment samples were collected on June 23 and 28, 2010

from two (2) site drainages that traverse the Active Plant Area and discharge to the

SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex (Figure 14). Analytical data do not exist for sediments in

these drainages; therefore, the purpose of these samples was to characterize

concentrations of site-related metals in sediments within the drainage channels. The

following sections describe the sampling approach and summarize the results of the site

drainage sediment sampling.


Bulk sediment samples were collected at five (5) stations within each drainage for a total

of 10 stations. Sediment samples were collected with a coring device to a depth of 24

inches, as prescribed by DFWMR. At each station, samples were collected at the

following four (4) depth intervals: 0 – 6, 6 – 12, 12 – 18, and 18 – 24 inches. Each

sample interval was homogenized to similar color and texture and placed in laboratory-

supplied containers for analysis by Test America Laboratories (Pittsburgh, PA).

Sediment samples were analyzed for the 12 site-specific metals identified as COPECs in

the Step IIB Report: antimony, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper,

lead, mercury, selenium, silver, and zinc; additional sediment analyses included TOC and

grain size.

6.2.2 Results

The results of the site drainage sediment characterization are illustrated in Figure 14. In

the ditch traversing the northern portion of the Site, concentrations of metals did not

indicate a distinct trend along the flow path or with sampling depth. The maximum

concentration of mercury in the surface sampling interval (0 – 0.5’) was observed at the

farthest upstream sampling station (PE-DRN-SD-01); concentrations of mercury varied

by station and depth in the remaining samples. At station near the discharge to the

SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex (PE-DRN-SD-05), concentrations of copper, mercury,

selenium, silver, and zinc were elevated in the surficial 0-0.5 foot sample.

In the ditch traversing the southern portion of the Site, greater concentrations of metals

were observed at stations downgradient (east) of the railroad tracks relative to stations on

the Active Plant (Figure 14). The greatest concentrations were observed at the two

stations near the discharge to the wetlands, PE-DRN-SD-07 and PE-DRN-SD-06.

Sediments at these stations generally had the greatest concentrations of copper, lead,

mercury and zinc at all depths when compared to other stations within the drainage ditch.

In total, these results indicate that the two drainage ditches that traverse the Site may

represent historic migration pathways of site-related metals.

Port Ewen, New York Exposure Evaluation Approach

37

7.0 EXPOSURE EVALUATION APPROACH

The following sections present the approach used to evaluate data collected as part of the

FWIA Step IIC investigations described in Section 4.0 for the SWMU 1/22 Wetland

Complex and Section 5.0 for the Active Plant Area. The framework that is presented for

evaluating ecological exposure and potential ecological impacts associated with metals in

site media was initially established in the Work Plan (URS, 2010) and refined through

subsequent discussions with DFWMR in meetings (September 15, 2010 and February 24,

2011) and multiple teleconferences (March 4, 11, and 18, 2011).

7.1 SWMU 1/22 Exposure Evaluation

Consistent with the ECSM presented in Section 3.1, the framework for evaluating

ecological exposure in the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex included quantitative exposure

evaluations for the following receptor categories:

� Benthic invertebrate community;

� Fish community; and

� Semi-aquatic wildlife community.

As described above in Section 4.0 and the Work Plan, FWIA Step IIC investigations

conducted in the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex were designed to provide the necessary

data to evaluate exposure and potential ecological impacts to these receptor categories

(URS, 2010). The following sections describe the approach for evaluating exposure to

each receptor category.

7.1.1 Benthic Invertebrate Community Exposure Assessment

The following sections describe the approach to evaluating potential impacts to benthic

invertebrate communities associated with concentrations of site-related metals in

sediments. As discussed in Section 4.1, an SQT investigation was conducted to evaluate

potential risk to sediment-dwelling invertebrates in the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex

based on a weight-of-evidence evaluation of spatially- and temporally- matched sediment

chemistry, benthic community, and toxicity testing data. The following sections describe

the data analysis procedures used to evaluate each line of evidence in the SQT

investigation; the integration of the findings of each SQT line-of-evidence into a weight-

of-evidence evaluation is also discussed.

Bulk Sediment Chemistry

The results of bulk sediment analyses were evaluated in accordance with NYSDEC

Technical Guidance for Screening Contaminated Sediments (1999). NYSDEC guidance

establishes freshwater sediment screening values based on the lowest criterion developed

by Persaud et al. (1992) or Long and Morgan (1990). Measured concentrations of target

metals, with the exception of selenium, were evaluated based on these two risk levels:

� Lowest Effects Level (LEL): Lowest value of either the Persaud et al. (1992)

LEL or the Long and Morgan (1990) Effect Range-Low; and


38

� Severe Effects Level (SEL): Lowest value of either the Persaud et al. (1992) SEL

or the Long and Morgan (1990) Effect Range-Median.

No LEL or SEL exists for selenium; therefore, an SQG developed for British Columbia

by Nagpal et al. (1995) was used to evaluate measured concentrations of selenium.

The magnitude by which the measured concentration of a target metal exceeded its

respective SQG was represented for each station as the quotient of the measured

concentration to the SEL (SEL-Q). For selenium, the magnitude of exceedances was

represented as the quotient of the measured concentration to the SQG developed for

British Columbia by Nagpal et al. (1995). To represent concentrations of mixtures of

target metals relative to SQGs, a mean SEL-quotient (SEL-Qmean) was calculated for each

station (Fairey et al., 2001). The mean SEL-quotient was calculated as the mean of the

SEL-quotients calculated for individual target metals.

Benthic Invertebrate Community

Benthic invertebrate community data were evaluated consistent with the NYSDEC

(2009), as the guidance applies to the collection of benthic invertebrates in a Phragmites-

dominated wetland. A multi-metric approach was utilized to evaluate relative differences

between SWMU 1/22 SQT and reference SQT stations. A subset of the benthic

community metrics identified in the NYSDEC guidance that are applicable to wetland

habitats were included in the evaluation. These metrics include:

� Taxa Richness;

� Non-chironomid and Oligochaete (NCO) Richness;

� Percent Model Affinity;

� Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index (H);

� Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI); and

� Percent abundance of the dominant taxon.

The metrics listed above were quantified for the summer (June 2010) and the fall

(October 2010) benthic invertebrate community sampling efforts. Mean values

plus/minus the standard error for each metric were presented graphically to enable visual

comparisons between SWMU 1/22 SQT stations and reference SQT stations.

Significant differences between metric values calculated for SQT stations were evaluated

using parametric and non-parametric statistical methods. For the statistical analyses,

reference stations (SQT-9, SQT-10, and SQT-11) were pooled and compared to SQT

stations within the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex. The statistical method used to

evaluate differences between stations was selected based on data distribution. Normally

distributed datasets, as determined by the Shapiro-Wilk test for normality, were evaluated

using parametric one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Non-normal data were log-

transformed and re-evaluated for normality. Transformed data that satisfied the

normality assumption were analyzed using parametric ANOVA; data that did not satisfy

normality assumptions following transformation were analyzed using a non-parametric

Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA.


39

As described above parametric or non-parametric ANOVA was used to evaluate

statistically significant differences between metric values from SQT stations. For metrics

that were observed to have statistically significant differences between stations based on

α=0.05, for either season, a Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) pairwise

comparison test was performed to identify statistical differences (α=0.05) between

individual stations.

As requested by DFWMR, benthic community metrics calculated for SQT stations were

also evaluated based on the NYSDEC Biological Assessment Profile (BAP) of index

values for net jabs for slow, sandy streams (NYSDEC 2009). Specific metrics evaluated

in the BAP for slow, sandy streams include:

� Species (taxa) Richness;

� Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI);

� Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT) Richness; and

� Non-Chironomidae and Oligochaete (NCO) Richness.

The BAP of index values is a method of standardizing values for these metrics to a

common 10-scale, which enables plotting of metrics on a common scale of impacts. The

mean value of the indices represents the assessed impact for each station. Potential

benthic community impacts at SWMU 1/22 SQT stations were evaluated by comparing

BAP scores at SWMU 1/22 SQT stations with BAP scores at reference SQT stations.

BAP scores for June and October benthic community sampling at SQT stations were

graphically displayed to enable qualitative comparisons of BAP scores.

Sediment Toxicity As discussed in Section 4.1.1, sediment toxicity testing provides an ex situ evaluation of

sediment toxicity at SWMU 1/22 SQT stations relative to reference SQT stations.

Chronic test endpoints specified in Section 4.1.2, provided the basis for comparisons

between SWMU 1/22 SQT and reference SQT stations. Survival, growth, reproduction

(Hyalella azteca only) and emergence (Chironomus riparius only) endpoints were

analyzed to determine statistically significant differences between sediments from

SWMU 1/22 SQT stations and sediments from laboratory control and reference SQT

stations. Statistical comparisons were conducted by EnviroSystems using CETIS®

software. Parametric or non-parametric ANOVA and subsequent pairwise comparisons

were used to evaluate statistical differences in the datasets depending on the normality of

the distribution and the homogeneity of sample variance; statistical differences were

evaluated at α=0.05. Sediments from SWMU 1/22 SQT stations were considered toxic to

benthic invertebrates in a given toxicity test if the test endpoint was significantly different

than at least two (2) reference SQT stations. Further description of the evaluation of

sediment toxicity data is provided in Appendix B.


40

SQT Weight-of-Evidence Evaluation

The multiple lines-of-evidence in the SQT investigation were integrated into a weight-of-

evidence evaluation to assess benthic community impairment in the SWMU 1/22

Wetland Complex. The lines-of-evidence included in the SQT investigation vary in

terms of relevance to the site-specific toxicity of sediments (Bay et al. 2007); therefore,

the Work Plan established the relative weight of each line-of-evidence in the weight-of-

evidence evaluation (URS, 2010). Table 20 provides the basis for the following

weighting of SQT lines-of-evidence as presented in the Work Plan, listed in order of

descending relative weight:

1) Benthic community analyses;

2) Sediment toxicity testing: 28-day Chironomus riparius and 42-day Hyalella

azteca tests; and

3) Comparison of bulk sediment chemistry to SQGs.

As presented in Table 20, benthic community analyses provide the most relevant

information regarding site-specific toxicity (Chapman 2007; Chapman and Anderson

2005; McPherson et al. 2008). Community studies are in situ evaluations of indigenous

benthic invertebrates that have integrated the effects of chemical and physical stressors

and have evolved over time to survive in a highly variable and stressful environment.

Benthic community data are most relevant to site-specific exposure; therefore, these data

were afforded the greatest weight in the SQT investigation.

Sediment toxicity testing is less relevant to site-specific toxicity when compared to

benthic community analyses because it represents an ex situ evaluation of sediment

toxicity that creates artificial exposure conditions (e.g., disruption of redox conditions,

etc.) through the collection, transport, and manipulation of sediments. Furthermore,

sediment toxicity testing is conducted using naive laboratory-reared organisms that are

not as tolerant to a highly variable and stressful environment as are organisms living in

the wild (Klerks et al., 1989; Johnston 2010) Of the available chronic endpoints from

the Hyalella and Chironomus testing conducted in the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex,

greater weight in the determination of sediment toxicity was assigned to lethal endpoints

(i.e., survival) relative to sublethal endpoints (e.g., growth, reproduction). Lethal

endpoints were afforded greater weight in the SQT evaluation because adverse effects

observed in these test endpoints will likely result in greater effects on population stability

(McPherson et al. 2008).

The lowest relative weight in the SQT evaluation was assigned to comparisons of bulk

sediment concentrations to generic sediment screening values (e.g., LEL or SEL).

Generic sediment screening values do not take into account site-specific factors that

mitigate the toxicity and bioavailability of metals in sediments (NYSDEC 1999;

McPherson et al. 2008; Chapman and Anderson 2005). As a result, these comparisons

are the least relevant to the site-specific toxicity of sediments when considered relative to

benthic community analyses and sediment toxicity testing.


41

Consistent with the weighting of the lines-of-evidence described above, SQT data from

the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex were evaluated based on the framework for

interpreting SQT data proposed by (Bay and Weisberg, 2010). The framework for

integrating the three lines-of-evidence into a station-specific assessment of impacts is

based on a three step process:

� Step 1: The response for each line-of-evidence is assigned into one of four

categories:

1. No difference from reference conditions (i.e., minimal response);

2. A minor response that might not be statistically distinguishable from

reference (i.e., low response);

3. A response that is clearly distinguishable from reference (i.e., moderate

response); and

4. A severe response indicative of extreme conditions (i.e., high response).

For the SQT lines-of-evidence evaluated in the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex,

the response category for each line of evidence was assigned based on the

following criteria for each line-of-evidence:

o Sediment chemistry: Exposure to target metals concentrations at each

station was evaluated relative to SQGs using SEL-Q values for individual

metals and SEL-Qmean values calculated for mixtures of target metals at

each station. Potential exposure to target metals in sediments at each SQT

station was categorized as minimal (SEL-Qmean <1), low (SEL-Qmean 1-5),

moderate (SEL-Qmean 5-15), or high (SEL-Qmean >15).

o Sediment toxicity testing: Potential benthic community-level responses

associated with toxicity tests were assigned based on survival endpoints in

the most sensitive chronic toxicity test, i.e. the 42-day Hyalella azteca test.

Hyalella is a more sensitive indicator of survival relative to Chironomus,

which only had significant survival effects at SQT-03. Therefore, the use

of Hyalella endpoints is a conservative representation of sediment toxicity

at SQT stations within the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex.

As previously stated, greater weight is afforded to survival endpoints

because adverse effects observed in these test endpoints will likely result

in greater effects on population stability (McPherson et al., 2008). Test

organism survival at SWMU 1/22 SQT stations was evaluated based on

relative to survival at reference stations (relative survival) by dividing the

mean survival at the study station relative to mean survival at the

combined reference stations. Potential responses were assigned to each

SWMU 1/22 station based on comparisons of the relative survival of

Hyalella azteca. Potential toxicity at each SQT station was categorized as

nontoxic (> 80 percent relative survival and not statistically different from

reference survival), low (60 – 80 percent relative survival), moderate (30 –

60 percent relative survival), or high (< 30 percent relative survival).


42

o Benthic invertebrate community data: Impacts or disturbances to

benthic communities were evaluated based on relative comparisons of

mean BAP index values for the June sampling event5. Differences

between mean BAP index values at SWMU 1/22 and reference SQT

stations were evaluated as the ratio of mean BAP index values for SWMU

1/22 SQT stations to the mean BAP index values for the combined

reference SQT stations. Ratios of mean BAP index values (BAP-Q) less

than 1.0 were indicative of a disturbance or impact at SWMU 1/22 stations

relative to reference conditions. Potential benthic community disturbance

at each SQT station was categorized as: reference (BAP-Q >1), low

(BAP-Q = 0.8 – 1.0), moderate (BAP-Q = 0.4 – 0.8), or high (BAP-Q <

0.4). In addition to mean BAP index values, the number of community

metrics that were significantly different at SWMU 1/22 stations relative to

reference stations was considered in assigning response categories.

� Step 2: Based on the responses assigned for each line-of-evidence at the SQT

stations, the individual lines-of-evidence were integrated to address two key

questions: 1) Is the degradation of benthic community structural metrics evident

at SWMU 1/22 SQT stations, and 2) Are concentrations of target metals

sufficiently elevated in sediments to explain the observed degradation? The

framework for addressing these questions is presented in Table 21, as developed

by (Bay and Weisberg, 2010). The process for implementing the framework is

presented below:

o Classifying the Severity of Effects: As presented in the Table 21A, the

process for classifying the severity of effects integrates the results of

sediment toxicity testing and benthic community analyses. Based on the

response categories assigned in Step 1 for each respective line-of-

evidence, the severity of biological effects was classified for each SWMU

1/22 SQT station using the matrix presented in Table 21A.

o Potential for Chemically Mediated Effects: The potential for observed

biological effects to be associated with exposure to target metals in

sediments was assessed based on the integration of the sediment chemistry

and sediment toxicity testing lines-of-evidence. As illustrated in Table 21

B, response categories assigned in Step 1 for the sediment chemistry and

sediment toxicity testing lines-of-evidence were used to identify the

potential for chemically-mediated effects.

5 Because of the low density of organisms collected during the October sampling event, the mean BAP index was

greater than 1.0 for all stations except SQT-3 and SQT-6. It is likely that low invertebrate density at SWMU 1/22

and reference stations and the resulting high BAP was influenced by factors other than sediment chemistry;

therefore, to be conservative, only the results from the June sampling event.


43

o Step 3: The final step in the weight-of-evidence evaluation of the SQT lines-of-

evidence is the integration of the severity of effects classifications (Table 21A)

and the potential for chemically-mediated effects (Table 21B). Using the matrix

presented in Table 21C, station-specific impacts were assigned for each SWMU

1/22 SQT station based on the severity of biological effects and the potential for

chemically-mediated effects classifications designated in Step 2 (Tables 21B and

21C). Integration of the SQT lines-of-evidence based on the framework described

above was used to assign SWMU 1/22 SQT stations to one of six impact

categories, as presented in Bay and Weisberg (2010):

o Unimpacted: Confident that sediment contamination is not causing

significant adverse impacts to aquatic life living in the sediment at the

Site;

o Likely unimpacted: Sediment contamination at the Site is not expected

to cause adverse impacts to aquatic life, but some disagreement among the

lines-of-evidence reduces certainty in classifying the site as unimpacted;

o Possibly impacted: Sediment contamination at the Site may be causing

adverse impacts to aquatic life, but these impacts are either small or

uncertain because of disagreement between among the lines of evidence;

o Likely impacted: Evidence for a contaminant-related impact to aquatic

life at the Site is persuasive, even if there is some of disagreement among

lines-of-evidence;

o Clearly impacted: Sediment contamination at the Site is causing clear

and severe adverse impacts to aquatic life.

o Inconclusive: Disagreements among the lines-of-evidence suggest that

either the data are suspect or that additional information is needed before a

classification can be made.

7.1.2 Fish Community Exposure Assessment

The exposure assessment for the fish community in the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex

was based on the following three lines of evidence:

� Comparison of surface water results to water quality criteria protective of aquatic

life;

� Comparison of the fish presence/absence survey results from the SWMU 1/22 and

downstream sampling reach to survey results from the upstream sampling reach;

and

� Comparison of mercury concentrations in fish tissue to a conservative tissue

residue benchmark for mercury.

Fish community exposure was evaluated based on comparisons of concentrations of

target metals in filtered surface water samples to chronic NYSDEC SWQS for the

protection of aquatic life. Direct contact exposure (gill absorption) with surface water is

a primary route of exposure for fish in the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex.


44

Evaluation of the fish community was based on qualitative comparisons of fish taxa

present within and downstream of the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex to taxa observed

upstream of the wetland. The results of the presence/absence survey were evaluated to

identify potential patterns in the distribution of taxa that was consistent with gradients of

metals concentrations in sediment and/or surface water.

Potential adverse effects related to fish community exposure to mercury in the SWMU

1/22 Wetland Complex were evaluated based on comparisons of measured concentrations

of mercury to a conservative tissue residue benchmark. Whole body fish tissue samples

(wet weight) were compared to a tissue residue benchmark established by Beckvar et al.

(2005). Based on studies with paired no effect and effect endpoints (e.g., survival,

growth, reproduction, development, behavior), Beckvar et al. (2005) summarized no

effect residue (NER) and low effect residue (LER) whole body burden thresholds for

mercury for various fish life stages (e.g., eggs, larval, fry, adult, etc.). Based on the

geometric mean of paired NER and LER values, Beckvar et al. (2005) recommended a

whole body threshold effect concentration of 210 ng/g wet weight. This threshold effect

concentration was considered protective of juvenile and adult fish due to the

representation of multiple life stages in the supporting studies. Mercury concentrations in

whole body fish tissues measured in the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex were evaluated

relative to this benchmark as a conservative evaluation of potential effects.

7.1.3 Semi-Aquatic Wildlife Exposure Assessment

Simplified dose rate models were developed to evaluate wildlife ingestion pathways in

the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex. Dose rate models were developed to calculate

estimated daily doses (EDDs) of metals that select receptor groups may experience

through exposure to site media. EDDs for wildlife receptors were calculated using: (1)

EPCs based on site-specific measurements of metals in prey and abiotic media and (2)

receptor-specific exposure parameters and food chain model assumptions. EDDs were

calculated using EPCs and receptors-specific exposure parameters expressed on a dry

weight basis6.

Calculated EDDs were compared to toxicity reference values (TRVs) representing no

observable adverse effect levels (NOAELs) or low observable adverse effect levels

(LOAELs) to evaluate the potential for adverse ecological effects. Potential risks

associated with estimated doses to wildlife receptors were expressed as hazard quotient

(HQs), which represent the ratio of the calculated EDD to the TRV for wildlife ingestion

pathways:

TRV

EDDHQ =

Potential risk may be characterized based on HQs, as follows:

6 Wet weight tissue concentrations reported by analytical laboratories were converted to dry weight based on the

measured moisture content of tissue samples. Measured tissue concentrations were input into the dose rate models

to maintain consistency with exposure parameters (e.g, food and sediment ingestion rates) expressed on a dry weight

basis.


45

ο HQs greater than 1.0 indicate that exposure exceeds a known threshold of effects,

which could represent no adverse effects (e.g., NOAEL) or low adverse effects

(e.g., LOAELs).

ο HQs less than 1.0 based on a NOAEL indicate that adverse effects are extremely

unlikely because constituent concentrations result in a dose that has been

demonstrated not to cause adverse ecological effects.

� HQs less than 1.0 based on a LOAEL indicate that constituent concentrations do

not result in an exposure associated with adverse ecological effects to test

organisms; HQs less than 1.0 based on a LOAEL are not likely to result in

adverse effects to receptor populations.

Appendix D provides a detailed description of the dose rate model, including the

derivation of exposure parameters, the calculation of exposure point concentrations, and

the derivation of TRVs. A general overview of the model is provided below.

Dose Rate Model Overview

The total dose (EDDtotal) experienced by each receptor was calculated as the sum of the

doses obtained from the primary routes of exposure, the direct ingestion of dietary items,

the direct ingestion of surface water, and the incidental ingestion of substrate (e.g., soil or

sediment):

substratewaterdiettotal EDDEDDEDDEDD ++=

In the model, the dose from each route of exposure was calculated individually as

follows:

Dietary Dose:

As described in Section 4.5, concentrations of metals in dietary items of semi-aquatic

wildlife receptors were directly measured in the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex.

Representative EPCs for input into the dietary dose models were based on the upper 95

percent confidence limit of the mean concentrations (UCL95) of the site-specific dry

weight tissue datasets. UCL95 concentrations were calculated using USEPA ProUCL

4.00.02, as described in detail in Appendix D. Receptor-specific exposure parameters

were used to estimate the dietary dose based on the tissue EPCs as follows:

BW

AUFDFCDIREDD

iit

diet

∑ ×××

=

)(

where:

EDDdiet = Dietary dose of constituent (mg/kg receptor body weight-day)

DIR = Daily ingestion rate of dietary items (kg food ingested per day, dry

weight)

Ct i = UCL95 concentration of constituent in dietary item i (mg /kg food item,

dry weight)

DFi = Dietary fraction of item i (proportion of dietary item in total diet)

AUF = Area use factor (unitless)


46

BW = Body weight of the receptor, wet weight (kg)

Water Dose:

The dose associated with the direct ingestion of surface water was calculated based on

maximum unfiltered surface water concentrations and receptor-specific exposure

parameters as follows:

BW

AUFCWIREDD water

water

××=

EDDwater = Dose of constituent obtained through direct ingestion of surface water

(mg/kg receptor body weight-day)

WIR = Drinking water ingestion rate (liters ingested per day)

Cwater = Maximum constituent concentration in unfiltered surface water (mg/L)



Substrate Dose:

The dose associated with the incidental ingestion of sediment was calculated based on

calculated UCL95 sediment concentrations and receptor-specific exposure parameters as

follows:

BW

AUFCSIREDD substrateincidental

substrate

××=

EDDsubstrate = Dose of constituent obtained through incidental ingestion of substrate


SIRincidental = Incidental ingestion rate of substrate (kg substrate ingested per day, dry

weight)

Csubstrate = Constituent concentration in substrate (mg COPEC/kg substrate, dry

weight)



Based on the dose rate model described above, potential risks to wildlife receptors were

evaluated based on two (2) scenarios:

� Maximum Area Use: Scenario conservatively assumes that individual wildlife

receptors forage exclusively within the defined exposure area for their entire life

span. For this scenario, the AUF input into the dose rate model is 1.0; and

� Area Use Adjusted Exposure: Scenario quantifies exposure based on the

proportion of the time that a receptor is likely to forage within the exposure area

as a function of its total foraging range. For this scenario, the AUF input into the

dose rate model is the ratio of the size of the exposure area to the size of the

receptor-specific foraging range (See Appendix D).


47

Further discussion of the exposure scenarios and the underlying assumptions used in the

evaluation of wildlife exposure in the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex is provided in

Appendix D.

Exposure Area

The wildlife exposure area for SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex included the area from the

plant entrance road to the farthest extent of the downstream sediment characterization

sampling (Figure 15). In addition, at the request of DFWMR, portions of the site

drainage ditches to the east of the railroad tracks were conservatively included in the

exposure area. The area characterized by the downstream sediment sampling stations

was included in the wildlife exposure area due to the elevated concentrations of site-

related metals observed in sediments downstream of the site and the potential for wildlife

foraging within the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex to forage downstream of the site.

Based on these extents, the total exposure area for the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex

comprises approximately 5.2 hectares and approximately 1.9 linear kilometers (Figure

15).

Selected Receptors

Consistent with the ECSM developed in Section 3.1, potential exposures to representative

wildlife receptors in the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex were modeled to evaluate

potential risk to the following trophic categories:

� Avian aerial insectivore: Tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor);

� Avian piscivore (large): Great blue heron (Ardea herodias)

� Avian piscivore (small): Belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon);

� Avian invertivore: Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos)

� Mammalian aerial insectivore: Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis);

� Mammalian piscivore: Mink (Mustela vison); and

� Mammalian omnivore: Raccoon (Procyon lotor).

Receptor-specific parameters used to evaluate exposure to representative receptors are

provided in Appendix D.

7.2 Active Plant Area Exposure Evaluation

The exposure evaluation in the Active Plant Area focused on potential risks to wildlife

receptors that potentially forage on small mammals and earthworms along the margins of

the facility. Terrestrial wildlife exposure was evaluated for the following scenarios for

the Active Plant based on the sampling design described in Section 5.1:

� Northern sampling grids: maximum area use exposure;

� Southern sampling grids: maximum area use exposure; and

� Northern and Southern sampling grids: maximum area use and adjusted area use

exposure for long-ranging receptors.


48

Maximum area use exposure was appropriate when evaluating the plant regions

individually based on the foraging range of receptors. Short-ranging receptors (e.g.,

short-tailed shrew and American robin) would forage exclusively within the northern or

southern grids based on limited home range; therefore, area use adjusted doses would not

be appropriate for these receptors. The foraging area of these short-range receptors is not

large enough to include both plant regions; therefore, only long-ranging receptors were

evaluated in the combined northern and southern grid exposure scenario.

The combined data for the northern and southern grids were used to conservatively

represent exposure throughout the approximately 42 hectares of the Active Plant Area.

Area use adjusted exposure to long-ranging receptors (e.g., red-tailed hawk and red fox)

was only evaluated in the combined northern and southern grids exposure evaluation

because the foraging area of these receptors could include both plant regions. The

following section describes the approach for evaluating wildlife exposure in the Active

Plant Area.

7.2.1 Terrestrial Wildlife Exposure Assessment

The wildlife exposure assessment for the Active Plant Area was conducted using dose

rate models. Consistent with the evaluation of wildlife exposure in the SWMU 1/22

Wetland Complex, calculated EDDs from dose rate models were compared to TRVs and

potential risks to wildlife were expressed as HQs, representing the ratio of the calculated

EDD to the TRV.

A detailed description of the dose rate model is provided in Appendix D, including the

derivation of exposure parameters for terrestrial receptors, the calculation of exposure

point concentrations, and the derivation of TRVs. A general overview of the model is

provided below.

Dose Rate Model Overview

Based on the ECSM for the Active Plant Area (Section 3.2), the total dose (EDDtotal)

experienced by each select receptor was calculated as the sum of the doses obtained from

the primary routes of exposure: the direct ingestion of dietary items and the incidental

ingestion of substrate (e.g., soil):

substratediettotal EDDEDDEDD +=

The dose from each route of exposure was calculated using the general form of the

equations presented in Section 7.1.3. Input parameters specific to each exposure route for

the terrestrial wildlife exposure evaluation include:

Dietary Dose:

As described in Section 5.1.1, concentrations of metals in earthworms and small

mammals were directly measured from select areas on the margins of the Active Plant

Area. Representative EPCs for input into the dietary dose models for predators of small

mammals and vermivorous wildlife were based on the UCL95 concentrations calculated

from the site-specific dry weight small mammal and earthworm tissue datasets,

respectively. UCL95 concentrations were calculated using USEPA ProUCL 4.00.02, as

described in detail in Appendix D. The estimated dietary dose was calculated based on


49

the tissue EPCs using the dietary dose equation presented in Section 7.1.3 (See Appendix

D).

Substrate Dose:

The estimated dose associated with the incidental ingestion of soil was calculated based

on UCL95 soil concentrations and receptor-specific exposure parameters using the

substrate dose equation presented in Section 7.1.3. Additional details regarding the

calculation of estimated substrate doses are provided in Appendix D.

Selected Receptors

Consistent with the ECSM developed in Section 3.2, potential exposures to representative

wildlife receptors in the Active Plant Area were modeled to evaluate potential risk to the

following trophic categories:

� Red fox (Vulpes vulpes): carnivorous mammal;

� Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis): carnivorous bird;

� Short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda): vermivorous mammal; and

� American robin (Turdus migratorius): vermivorous bird.

Receptor-specific parameters used to evaluate exposure to representative receptors in the

Active Plant Area are provided in Appendix D.

Port Ewen, New York SWMU 1/22 Exposure Evaluation and Risk Characterization

50

8.0 SWMU 1/22 EXPOSURE EVALUATION AND RISK CHARACTERIZATION

Based on the approach detailed in the preceding section, the results of the SWMU 1/22

Investigations (Section 4.0) were used to evaluate current ecological exposure to aquatic

and semi-aquatic receptors potentially inhabiting the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex.

The following sections present the results of the exposure evaluation for the receptor

groups identified in the ECSM (Section 3.1):

� Benthic invertebrate community;

� Fish community; and

� Semi-aquatic wildlife community.

Potential risks to each receptor group are characterized based on the results of the

exposure evaluation.

8.1 Benthic Invertebrate Community Exposure

Benthic invertebrate community exposure was evaluated based on a weight-of-evidence

SQT approach integrating the bulk sediment chemistry, benthic invertebrate community,

and sediment toxicity results presented in Section 4.1.3. The following sections present

the results of the exposure evaluation for the SQT lines of evidence based on the

evaluation approach established in Section 7.1. The findings of the exposure evaluation

for each line of evidence is integrated into a weight-of-evidence assessment of benthic

invertebrate community impacts in the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex.

8.1.1 Sediment Quality Triad Exposure Evaluation

The following sections present the findings of the exposure evaluation for each line of

evidence in the SQT investigation.

Sediment Chemistry

Sediment chemistry results were evaluated relative to SQGs provided in NYSDEC

guidance (NYSDEC, 1999). Measured concentrations of metals in sediment, with the

exception of selenium, were compared to: 1) LEL values indicative of sediment

contamination that can be tolerated by the majority of benthic organisms, but may cause

toxicity to a few species; and 2) SEL values indicative of contamination that is expected

to result in the disturbance of benthic invertebrate communities. No LEL or SEL exists

for selenium; therefore, an SQG developed for British Columbia by Nagpal et al. (1995)

was used as a representative LEL to evaluate selenium concentrations. The results of the

comparisons of sediment metals concentrations to SQGs is presented in Table 2, and

illustrated spatially in Figure 5.


51

Evaluation of target metals concentrations in SWMU 1/22 SQT sediments indicates

exceedances of SQGs (Table 2). Measured concentrations of target metals at SQT

stations exceeded LELs for all metals in each sample, with the exception of cadmium and

zinc in SQT-03. SELs were exceeded in each sample for copper, lead, and mercury; four

samples exceeded the SEL for zinc and only one sample exceeded the SEL for cadmium.

SEL-Q and SEL-Qmean values are presented in Table 22 for each SQT station. As

previously stated for selenium, SEL-Q was represented as the quotient of the measured

concentration to the SQG developed for British Columbia by Nagpal et al. (1995).

Concentrations resulting in the greatest magnitude of SEL exceedances were observed in

samples from stations SQT-03, SQT-04, and SQT-06. As previously stated, these

stations are closest to the SWMU 22 landfill (Figure 5).

Concentrations of target metals measured at reference SQT stations exceeded LELs for

most metals in most samples (Table 2); however no samples contained target metals

concentrations exceeding an SEL (Table 22).

Benthic Invertebrate Community

As discussed in Section 7.1.1, benthic community data were evaluated based on a multi-

metric approach consistent with NYSDEC (2009) and in consultation with DFWMR.

Calculated metric values for the Summer (June) 2010 and Fall (October) 2010 sampling

events are tabulated in Table 23 and presented graphically in Figure 16 for the following

metrics:

� Taxa Richness;

� NCO Richness;

� Percent Model Affinity;

� Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index;

� Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI); and

� Percent abundance of the dominant taxon.

Table 24 presents a summary of statistical comparisons of benthic community metrics at

SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex stations and pooled reference stations. Shaded p-values

in Table 24 indicate statistically significant differences between SWMU 1/22 metric

values and reference values that are consistent with benthic community degradation. The

following sections present the evaluation of benthic invertebrate data for the June and

October 2010 sampling events.

June 2010

For the June 2010 sampling event, metrics values calculated for stations SQT-01, SQT-

02, and SQT-08 were not indicative of benthic community degradation when compared

to reference metric values (Figure 16). Taxa richness, NCO richness, Shannon-Weiner

diversity indices and percent model affinity values for these stations were greater than or

comparable to richness values calculated for reference stations. Values for the percent

abundance of the dominant taxon and HBI were comparable to reference stations. None

of the metric values calculated for these stations were statistically different than metric

values from pooled reference samples.


52

The statistical evaluation of June 2010 benthic community metrics indicates significant

differences in metric values at select SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex stations when

compared to reference stations. Benthic communities at stations SQT-03, SQT-04, SQT-

05, and SQT-07 were characterized by significantly greater relative abundance of the

dominant taxon and lower diversity when compared to reference stations. Taxa and NCO

richness values at stations SQT-03, SQT-04, SQT-05, and SQT-06 were consistent with

the lower portion of the range of richness values for reference samples (Figure 16),

although only NCO richness at SQT-04 was statistically lower than reference (Table 24).

Percent model affinity values at stations SQT-03, SQT-05, and SQT-07 were also

significantly lower than reference stations. Samples from stations SQT-03 and SQT-04

contained a more tolerant community relative to reference stations based on statistically

greater HBI values.

Benthic community metrics calculated for SQT stations in June 2010 were also evaluated

based on the NYSDEC BAP of index values for net jabs for slow, sandy streams

(NYSDEC, 2009). As described in Section 7.1.1, the BAP for slow, sandy streams

standardizes metric values for taxa richness, HBI, EPT richness, and NCO richness into a

common 10-scale. The mean value of the metrics presents an index value to assess

impacts at each SWMU 1/22 SQT station relative to index values from reference SQT

stations. The BAP of index values for the June sampling event are tabulated in Table 25

and presented graphically in Figure 17.

The results of the BAP are generally consistent with the findings of the multi-metric

statistical evaluation describe above. As presented in Figure 17, mean index values for

SQT-01, SQT-02, SQT-07, and SQT-08 were greater than or equal to the greatest index

value for the reference stations (SQT-11), indicating that benthic community condition at

these stations is equivalent to or greater than the condition of the reference community.

Values for individual metrics included in the index value were also generally comparable

to or greater than reference values for these stations. Mean index values for SQT-03,

SQT-04, SQT-05, and SQT-06 were lower than the lowest reference index value (SQT-

09), indicating that benthic community condition at these stations is degraded relative to

the reference community.

October 2010

As described in Section 4.1.3, benthic community samples from the October 2010

sampling event were generally depauperate at SWMU 1/22 and reference SQT stations

relative to June 2010 samples. Samples from station SQT-03 were completely

depauperate in October; no benthic invertebrate organisms were present in any of the

replicate samples collected in October at SQT-03. Metric values calculated for the

October sampling event reflect this general decline in benthic community condition

(Table 23; Figure 16).

Statistical evaluations of metric values from October 2010 indicate limited significant

differences in metric values between SWMU 1/22 and reference stations (Table 24). The

only statistical difference between metric values at SWMU 1/22 SQT stations and the

pooled reference data was the HBI value at SQT-06, which was significantly greater than

values at reference stations. Greater variability was observed in October reference values

for the metrics that resulted in statistically significant differences in the June data


53

(percent dominant taxon, Shannon-Weiner diversity index, and percent model affinity).

The lack of statistically significant differences between these metrics in the October data

evaluation is likely attributed to the broad variability in reference metric values.

Despite the lack of statistical significance, SQT stations with metric values that were not

indicative of degradation in June were generally not indicative of degradation in October.

Richness metrics and percent model affinity were generally comparable or greater than

reference values at all SQT stations except SQT-03 and SQT-06. Consistent with these

results, the percent abundance of the dominant taxon and HBI values were comparable to

or lower than reference values at all stations except SQT-06; no values were calculated

for these metrics at SQT-03 because no organisms were recovered from this station.

The results of the BAP for the October samples illustrate the general decline in benthic

community condition at SWMU 1/22 and reference SQT stations relative to June

samples. As presented in Figure 17, the range of mean index values for October samples

were generally lower than range of values for June samples. Mean index values for

stations SQT-02 and SQT-07 were substantially greater than values for all reference

stations; index values for other stations except SQT-06 were comparable to or greater

than values for reference stations. Mean index values for SQT-06 and SQT-03 were

substantially lower than reference stations, indicating degraded benthic community

condition at these stations relative to the reference community.


The results of sediment toxicity tests indicate significant effects to test organisms at

several stations within the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex. As discussed in Section 4.1,

sediment toxicity was evaluated ex situ based on the following chronic tests:

� 42-day Hyalella azteca Test for Measuring the Effects of Sediment-Associated

Contaminants on Survival, Growth, and Reproduction (USEPA Method 100.4;

USEPA, 2000); and

� 28-day Chironomus riparius test evaluating survival, growth, and emergence

consistent with (OECD) Guideline 218 (OECD, 2004).

Table 9 presents a summary of toxicity testing endpoints for the Hyalella azteca test;

toxicity testing endpoints for the Chironomus riparius test are summarized in Table 10.

The following sections present the evaluation of the sediment toxicity testing results for

each test organism.

Hyalella Azteca Toxicity Test

The results of 42-day Hyalella azteca toxicity tests indicate significant effects on survival

at select stations within the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex (Table 9). Significantly

lower survival relative to reference samples was observed at stations SQT-01, SQT-03,

SQT-04, SQT-05, and SQT-06 for each survival endpoint evaluated; no test organisms

survived in toxicity tests containing sediment from SQT-03. Hyalella survival in samples

from SQT-02 was consistently near 64 percent for each endpoint, resulting in statistical

differences from reference samples at Day 28 and Day 35, but not at Day 42. Survival in

samples from SQT-07 and SQT-08 was not statistically different than reference samples

at any endpoint evaluated (Table 9).


54

Significant sublethal effects represented as decreased biomass and juvenile production

per female amphipod were also observed in Hyalella test organisms at select stations

within the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex (Table 9). Biomass and juvenile production

endpoints were significantly lower in samples from SQT-02, SQT-03, SQT-04, SQT-05,

and SQT-06 for each endpoint evaluated. Samples from SQT-01 resulted in significantly

lower biomass at Day 42 relative to reference samples; however, biomass at Day 28 was

not statistically different than reference samples. Juvenile production in samples from

SQT-01 was not significantly different than reference samples. Biomass was

significantly lower in SQT-07 samples at Day 28 and Day 42; however, it is important to

note that SQT-07 biomass at Day 42 was greater than biomass observed in laboratory

control samples (Table 9). Biomass and juvenile production in Hyalella test organisms at

SQT-08 were not statistically different from reference samples at any endpoint evaluated

in the test.

Comparisons of 42-day Hyalella azteca survival endpoints to target metals concentrations

at SQT stations indicate potential exposure-response relationships for lead and selenium.

As illustrated in Figure 18, percent survival of Hyalella test organisms at Day 42

generally declined with increasing concentrations of lead and selenium. Statistically

significant decreases in percent survival relative to reference samples were observed

along the concentration gradient between stations SQT-07 and SQT-01, which contained

selenium concentrations of 33.2 mg/kg and 35.6 mg/kg, respectively and lead

concentrations of 224 mg/kg and 251 mg/kg, respectively. Significant decreases in

survival at SQT stations were not consistent with concentration gradients of other target

metals, including mercury (Figure 18). Concentrations of other target metals that resulted

in significant mortality in Hyalella exposures were lower than concentrations of the same

metals that did not result in significant mortality for the same endpoint.

Comparisons of sublethal endpoints from the 42-day Hyalella azteca test to target metals

concentrations at SQT stations indicate similar exposure-response relationships for lead

and selenium. Biomass and juvenile production per female amphipod at Day 42

generally declined with increasing concentrations of lead and selenium (Figures 19 and

20, respectively). Statistically significant decreases in biomass relative to reference

samples were observed along the concentration gradient between stations SQT-08 and

SQT-07, which contained selenium concentrations of 16.4 mg/kg and 33.2 mg/kg,

respectively and lead concentrations of 128 mg/kg and 224 mg/kg, respectively.

Statistically significant decreases in juvenile production per female amphipod relative to

reference samples were observed along the concentration gradient between stations SQT-

08 and SQT-01, which corresponds to selenium concentrations of 33.2 mg/kg and 35.6

mg/kg, respectively and lead concentrations of 224 mg/kg and 251 mg/kg, respectively.

Similar to survival results, significant sublethal effects were not consistent with

concentration gradients of other target metals, including mercury (Figures 19 and 20).


55

Chironomus Riparius Toxicity Test

Chironomus riparius test organisms were less sensitive to chronic exposure to sediments

from the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex than were Hyalella azteca. As presented in

Table 10, Chironomus survival at Day 10 was statistically lower than reference survival

at only one station, SQT-03; none of the test organisms exposed to sediments from SQT-

03 survived to the Day 10 endpoint. Significant sublethal effects represented as biomass,

time to emergence, and percent emergence were also observed in Chironomus test

organisms in samples from SQT-03, SQT-04, and SQT-05. Day 10 biomass was

significantly lower in samples from SQT-03 (no surviving organisms) and SQT-05.

Time to emergence was significantly lower than reference samples at SQT-04 and SQT-

05; however, it is important to note that mean time to emergence in samples from both

stations exceeded the mean time of emergence for the laboratory control (Table 10). The

percent of Chironomus test organisms emerging was significantly lower at SQT-03; time

of Chironomus emergence was not statistically lower than reference samples for the

remaining SWMU 1/22 SQT stations (Table 10).

Similar to the results of the 42-day Hyalella azteca exposure, comparisons of chronic

Chironomus riparius survival endpoints to target metals concentrations at SQT stations

indicate potential exposure-response relationships for lead and selenium. As illustrated in

Figure 21, percent survival of Chironomus test organisms at Day 10 generally declined

with increasing concentrations of lead and selenium. Mean survival at SQT-05 was

lower than the range of standard error associated with reference survival; however,

survival at this station was not statistically lower than reference due the large standard

error associated with mean survival at SQT-05. The highest concentrations of selenium

and lead at which survival was not significantly lower than reference survival in

Chironomus exposures were 170 mg/kg and 2060 mg/kg, respectively. Concentrations of

other target metals were not associated with significant decreases in Chironomus

survival, as demonstrated by survival observed in samples from SQT-06. Samples at

SQT-06 contained maximum concentrations of cadmium, copper, mercury, and zinc, yet

Day 10 mean survival of Chironomus at SQT-06 (97.5 percent) was the maximum mean

survival observed in all test samples including the reference and laboratory control

samples (Table 10).

Comparisons of sublethal endpoints from the chronic Chironomus riparius test to target

metals concentrations at SQT stations indicate similar exposure-response relationships

for lead and selenium for biomass and no exposure-response relationship for percent

emergence. Day 10 biomass generally declined with increasing concentrations of lead

and selenium, with exposures to sediments at SQT-05 resulting in significantly lower

biomass relative to reference samples (Figures 22). Mean percent emergence of

Chironomus did not vary with target metal concentrations in sediment for stations other

than SQT-03. Mean percent emergence in samples representing the maximum

concentrations of cadmium, copper, mercury, zinc at (SQT-06) and lead and selenium

(SQT-05) were consistent with all other samples, including reference and laboratory

control samples (Figure 23; Table 10).


56

Toxicity Testing Summary

The results of ex situ sediment toxicity testing based on 42-day Hyalella azteca and

chronic Chironomus riparius tests indicate toxicity to laboratory test organisms exposed

to sediments at several SQT stations within the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex. As

discussed in the preceding sections, Hyalella test organisms were more sensitive to

sediment exposure when compared to Chironomus exposures. Based on the combined

bioassay results, the most significant effects in lethal and sublethal endpoints were

observed in samples from SQT-03, which did not have any surviving organisms at any

survival endpoints in either test. For stations SQT-04 and SQT-05, significant lethal and

sublethal effects were observed in Hyalella exposures and sublethal effects were

observed in Chironomus exposures. In samples from stations SQT-01, SQT-02, and

SQT-06, significant lethal and sublethal effects were observed in Hyalella exposures;

however no significant differences in lethal or sublethal endpoints were observed relative

to reference samples in Chironomus tests. Exposures to sediment from SQT-07 resulted

in no significant reduction in survival and only minor decreases in biomass in Hyalella

testing; lethal and sublethal endpoints in Chironomus exposures from SQT-07 were not

statistically different than reference exposures. No significant differences in Hyalella or

Chironomus endpoints were observed in samples from SQT-08, indicating no toxicity to

test organisms at this station.

The incidence of lethal and sublethal endpoints in sediment toxicity tests was most

consistent with concentration gradients of selenium and lead. Differentiating between

selenium- and lead-associated effects in sediment toxicity tests based on bioassay results

is uncertain due to the strong correlation between the concentrations of these metals in

sediments from the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex. As discussed in Section 4.1.3, the

strongest relationship between target metals concentrations in sediments was observed

between selenium and lead (r = 0.973). Given the co-occurrence of these metals in

sediments, mitigation of the potential toxicity of one metal should simultaneously address

the potential toxicity of the other metal.

8.1.2 Weight-of-Evidence Sediment Quality Triad Assessment

The multiple lines-of-evidence in the SQT investigation were integrated into a weight-of-

evidence evaluation to assess benthic community impairment in the SWMU 1/22

Wetland Complex based on the framework for interpreting SQT data proposed by (Bay

and Weisberg, 2010).

As the first step in the weight-of-evidence evaluation, the response for each line-of-

evidence was assigned one of four response categories relative to reference conditions.

Table 26 summarizes the data used to assign response categories for each line-of-

evidence; a discussion of the various response categories is provided below:


57

� Sediment chemistry: The evaluation of exposure to target metals in sediments

was based on SEL-Qmean values calculated for each station. SEL-Qmean values

were greatest at stations SQT-03, SQT-04, and SQT-06, ranging from 18.5 to

44.2; SEL-Qmean values for other SQT stations ranged from 5.2 to 12.1. Stations

with SEL-Qmean values greater than 15 (SQT-03, SQT-04, and SQT-06) were

classified as ‘high exposure’ for the sediment chemistry line of evidence; all other

SQT stations had SEL-Qmean values between 5 and 15 and were classified as

‘moderate exposure’.

� Sediment toxicity testing: The results of sediment toxicity tests were assigned

response categories based on relative survival, as compared to reference stations,

for chronic Hyalella azteca exposures. As presented in Table 26, sediments from

stations SQT-03 and SQT-05 were highly toxic in Hyalella exposures relative to

reference; these stations were designated as ‘high toxicity’. Exposure to

sediments from stations SQT-01, SQT-04, and SQT-06 resulted in relative percent

survival values ranging from 30 to 51.7 percent; these stations were classified as

‘moderate toxicity’. Hyalella survival at Day 42 in sediments from stations SQT-

02, SQT-07, and SQT-08 were not statistically different than survival in reference

sediments; these stations were classified as ‘nontoxic’.

� Benthic community analyses: Disturbance or impacts to benthic invertebrate

communities were classified for each SQT station based on statistical

comparisons of metric values and relative comparisons of mean BAP index

values. As presented in Table 26, SQT-03 was classified as ‘high disturbance’

based on statistical differences in all metrics and lower BAP index values for the

June samples relative to reference stations. Stations SQT-04, SQT-05, and SQT-

06 were classified as ‘moderate disturbance’ based on statistical differences in

more than one community metric or lower mean BAP index values less than 1.0.

The mean BAP index value at station SQT-07 was greater than reference;

however, the station was classified as ‘low disturbance’ based on statistically

different metric values for three community metrics. Stations SQT-01, SQT-02,

and SQT-08 were classified as ‘reference’ based on the lack of statistical

differences in community metrics and mean BAP index values exceeding

reference stations.

As discussed in Section 7.1.1, the second step in the SQT framework proposed by Bay

and Weisberg (2010) includes the integration of the three lines of evidence to evaluate the

severity of biological effects and the potential for chemically-mediated effects. The

weight-of-evidence evaluation of the severity of biological effects and the potential that

those biological effects may be associated with exposure to concentrations of target

metals in sediments are presented in Table 27 and summarized below:


58

� Classifying the Severity of Effects: Table 27A presents the integration of

sediment toxicity testing and benthic community lines-of-evidence to classify the

severity of biological effects. The severity of biological impacts was classified

based on the response classifications presented in Table 26 for each line-of-

evidence and the assessment framework presented in Table 21A. Station SQT-03

was classified as ‘high effect’ based on high community disturbance and high

toxicity. Stations SQT-04, SQT-05, and SQT-06 were classified as ‘moderate

effect’ based on moderate community disturbance and moderate to high toxicity.

Station SQT-01, SQT-02, and SQT-08 were classified as ‘unaffected’ based on

reference benthic community classification; stations SQT-02 and SQT-08 were

considered nontoxic, while SQT-01 was considered moderately toxic based on

chronic Hyalella exposures. SQT-07 was classified also classified as ‘unaffected’

based on low benthic community disturbance and nontoxic sediment toxicity tests

(Table 27A).

� Potential for Chemically Mediated Effects: Table 27B presents the integration

of sediment chemistry and sediment toxicity testing lines-of-evidence to evaluate

the potential for chemically-mediated biological effects. The potential for

chemically-mediated effects was classified based on the response classifications

for sediment chemistry and sediment toxicity testing presented in Table 26 and

the assessment framework presented in Table 21B. Stations SQT-03, SQT-04,

and SQT-06 were classified as ‘high potential’ for chemically-mediated effects

based on high exposure to sediment metals concentrations and moderate to high

toxicity. Stations SQT-01 and SQT-05 were classified as ‘moderate potential’

based on moderate exposure to metals concentrations in sediments and moderate

to high toxicity in sediment toxicity tests. Stations SQT-02, SQT-07, and SQT-08

were classified as ‘low potential’ for chemically-mediated effects based on

nontoxic responses in sediment toxicity tests, despite moderate exposure to target

metals in sediment.

Based on the classification of the severity of biological effects and the potential for

chemically-mediated effects, potential impacts to benthic invertebrate communities

associated with elevated concentrations of target metals in sediments were assessed for

each SWMU 1/22 SQT station. As presented in Table 27C, the final step of the weight-

of-evidence evaluation of the SQT lines-of-evidence classified SWMU 1/22 SQT stations

into four categories of relative impacts:


59

� Clearly Impacted: Stations SQT-03, SQT-04, and SQT-06 were classified as

‘clearly impacted’ based on moderate to high effects in community and toxicity

data and high potential for chemically-mediated effects (Table 27C). June benthic

community data at SQT-03 indicated a generally depauperate community

dominated by a single taxon (Chironomus sp.); no organisms were recovered from

benthic community samples collected in October from this station. Benthic

community metrics at SQT-04 and SQT-06 were indicative of impairment relative

to reference stations for the June and October sampling events. Toxicity tests

conducted using sediments from SQT-03 resulted in 100 percent mortality for

each survival endpoint. Toxicity testing based on sediments from SQT-04

resulted in significant lethal and sublethal effects to Hyalella and sublethal effects

to Chironomus; toxicity testing using sediments from SQT-06 resulted in lethal

and sublethal effects for Hyalella. SEL-Qmean values for these stations ranged

from 18.5 (SQT-04) to 44.2 (SQT-06).

� Likely Impacted: Station SQT-05 was classified as ‘likely impacted’ based on

moderate severity of effects and moderate potential for chemically-mediated

effects (Table 27C). Benthic community metrics at SQT-05, including percent

dominant taxon, diversity, and percent model affinity, were indicative of

impairment relative to reference stations for the June sampling event. Toxicity

testing based on sediments from SQT-05 resulted in significant lethal and

sublethal effects to Hyalella and sublethal effects to Chironomus. The SEL-Qmean

at SQT-05 was 12.1.

Likely Unimpacted: Station SQT-01was classified as ‘likely unimpacted’ based

on the absence of biological effects (i.e., unaffected), despite moderate potential

for chemically-mediated effects. Benthic community metrics at SQT-01

consistently indicated benthic community condition that was comparable to or

better than reference metrics; BAP index values for these stations were

comparable to or greater than reference values for both benthic community

sampling events. Toxicity tests for SQT-01 indicated moderate toxicity to

Hyalella, but no significant effects for Chironomus. The SEL-Qmean for SQT-01

was 10.1.

� Unimpacted: Stations SQT-02, SQT-07, and SQT-08 were classified as

‘unimpacted’ based on the absence of biological effects (i.e., unaffected) and low

potential for chemically-mediated effects. Benthic community metrics at SQT-02

and SQT-08 consistently indicated benthic community condition that was

comparable to or better than reference metrics; BAP index values for these

stations were comparable to or greater than reference values for both benthic

community sampling events. Chronic Hyalella and Chironomus toxicity testing

based on sediments from SQT-08 did not result in statistically significant

differences relative to reference samples for any lethal or sublethal endpoints;

toxicity testing of sediments from SQT-02 resulted only in significant sublethal

effects for Hyalella. Biological effects were not observed in site-specific benthic

invertebrate community and toxicity testing data, despite elevated concentrations

of target metals in sediments. SEL-Qmean values for SQT-02 and SQT-08 were

5.2 and 7.7, respectively.


60

Station SQT-07 was classified as ‘unimpacted’ based on low disturbance in

benthic community data, nontoxic survival endpoints in chronic toxicity testing,

and, moderate exposure; these classifications resulted in an absence of biological

effects and a low potential for chemically-mediated effects (Table 27C). BAP

index values for SQT-07 were comparable to or greater than reference for both

community sampling events; however, metric values for percent dominant taxon,

diversity, and percent model affinity were significantly lower than reference due

to the numerical dominance of the isopod Caecidotea sp. at this station, which

results in a higher present dominance and lower diversity. The dominance of

Caecidotea sp. at this station is consistent with the presence of a thick, organic

Phragmites root mat at the surface of the sediment. No significant effects were

observed in chronic endpoints evaluated in Hyalella or Chironomus exposures;

significant effects in toxicity tests were limited to a slight reduction in biomass in

the Hyalella exposure. Given that benthic invertebrate community structure was

influenced significantly by the nature of the substrate and significant lethal effects

were not observed in sediment toxicity testing, station SQT-07 was classified as

‘unimpacted’.

8.2 Fish Community Exposure

The following sections present the exposure evaluation for the fish community in the

SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex based on the evaluation of surface water data, the

findings of the fish presence absence survey, and comparisons of mercury concentrations

in fish tissue to a conservative tissue residue benchmark for mercury.

8.2.1 Surface Water Direct Contact Exposure

Direct contact surface water exposure to fish inhabiting the SWMU 1/22 Wetland

Complex is not likely to result in adverse ecological effects. As presented in Section

4.3.2, concentrations of target metals in filtered surface water samples were below

chronic NYSDEC SWQS, which are derived for the protection of aquatic life (Table 12).

Comparisons of SWQS values for hardness-dependent metals (cadmium, copper, lead,

zinc, etc.) were conservatively based on the lowest hardness value measured in the

surface water dataset. Based on these sampling results, chronic exposure to metals in

surface water is not likely to result in adverse effects to the fish community within the

SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex.


61

8.2.2 Community Evaluation

The results of the qualitative fish presence/absence survey conducted in the SWMU 1/22

Wetland Complex do not indicate degradation consistent with elevated metals

concentrations in sediment. As described in Section 4.4.2, only three taxa were collected

from sampling reaches upstream, within, and downstream of the SWMU 1/22 Wetland

Complex. Golden shiner was numerically dominant taxon and the only taxon collected in

each sampling reach. Other than one largemouth bass collected upstream of SWMU

1/22, there were no differences in the fish collected within the SWMU 1/22 Wetland

Complex and the fish collected in the upstream reach. The presence of American eel in

the downstream sampling reach is likely a function of upstream migration from

tributaries hydrologically connected to the Hudson River, including Rondout Creek and

the tributary draining the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex.

The composition of the fish community upstream, within, and downstream of the SWMU

1/22 is likely influenced by the availability of open water habitat and physicochemical

conditions in the wetland. The dominance of golden shiner is consistent with the limited

open water habitat available in the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex. Golden shiner, one

of the largest and most abundant cyprinids in the State of New York, is a warmwater

species that typically occurs in medium to large streams of low to moderate gradient, and

in swamps, ditches, sloughs, ponds, lakes, and reservoirs (Smith, 1985; Jenkins and

Burkhead, 1993). The occurrence of golden shiner is usually associated with abundant

vegetation (Smith, 1985; Jenkins and Burkhead, 1993). Golden shiner is also tolerant of

persistent high temperatures, having one of the highest lethal temperature tolerances of

any indigenous North American fish, near 40°C (Jenkins and Burkhead, 1993). Based on

the ability of golden shiner to tolerate and proliferate in habitats similar to the SWMU

1/22 Wetland Complex, it is likely that the dominance of this species is limited by habitat

availability in the wetland.

8.2.3 Mercury Tissue Residue Evaluation

As discussed in Section 7.1.2, potential mercury-associated impacts to the fish

community were evaluated based on comparisons of measured tissue concentrations to a

conservative tissue residue benchmark protective of juvenile and adult fish. As depicted

in Figure 24, whole body fish tissue samples (wet weight) were less than a tissue residue

benchmark of 210 ng/g wet weight established by Beckvar et al. (2005). All fish tissue

samples collected upstream, within, and downstream of the SWMU 1/22 Wetland

Complex were less than half of the threshold concentration. Based on this comparison, it

is not likely that mercury is accumulating in tissues at concentrations associated with

adverse ecological effects to individual fish. Therefore, community-level impacts due to

mercury are not likely in the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex or the downstream sampling

reach.


62

8.3 Semi-Aquatic Wildlife Exposure

Exposure to semi-aquatic wildlife potentially foraging in the SWMU 1/22 Wetland

Complex was evaluated using site-specific tissue data and simplified dose rate models

(Section 7.1.3). The following sections summarize the output of the models for the two

exposure scenarios evaluated for the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex:

� Maximum Area Use Exposure; and

� Area Use Adjusted Exposure.

A complete description of the modeling approach is presented in Appendix D; detailed

model calculations are presented in Appendix E.

8.3.1 Maximum Area Use

The following sections present the exposure evaluation for semi-aquatic wildlife based on

a maximum area use scenario, which conservatively assumes that individual semi-aquatic

wildlife receptors forage exclusively within the defined exposure area within the SWMU

1/22 Wetland Complex their entire life span. Table 28 presents HQs calculated based on

comparisons of modeled doses for the maximum area use scenario to NOAEL and

LOAEL TRVs (Appendix E). A summary of maximum area use exposure is presented

below by receptor (Table 28):

� Belted kingfisher: Estimated doses based on the ingestion of forage fish

exceeded NOAEL TRVs for methylmercury (HQNOAEL=3) and selenium

(HQNOAEL=2.3); the estimated dose of selenium slightly exceeded the LOAEL

(HQLOAEL=1.1). Estimated doses of all other target metals were less than NOAEL

doses (HQNOAEL<1).

� Great blue heron: Estimated doses based on the ingestion of forage and

piscivorous fish were comparable to NOAEL TRVs for methylmercury

(HQNOAEL=1.1) and selenium (HQNOAEL=1.0); no doses exceeded the LOAEL

TRV. Estimated doses of all other target metals were less than NOAEL doses

(HQNOAEL<1).

� Mallard: Estimated doses for mallards foraging for aquatic life stage

invertebrates exceeded NOAEL TRVs for copper (HQNOAEL=2.4) and selenium

(HQNOAEL=2.5); estimated doses of copper (HQLOAEL=1.3) and selenium

(HQLOAEL=1.3) slightly exceeded LOAEL doses. Estimated doses of all other

target metals were less than NOAEL doses (HQNOAEL<1).

� Tree swallow: Estimated doses based on the ingestion of emergent life stage

invertebrates exceeded NOAEL TRVs for copper (HQNOAEL=5.7), mercury

(HQNOAEL=1.3), methylmercury (HQNOAEL=4.4), and selenium (HQNOAEL=10.5);

estimated doses of copper (HQLOAEL=3.2), methylmercury (HQLOAEL=1.5), and

selenium (HQLOAEL=5.3) exceeded LOAEL doses. Estimated doses of cadmium,

lead, and zinc were less than NOAEL doses (HQNOAEL<1).


63

� Indiana bat: Estimated doses to Indiana bat foraging on emergent life stage

invertebrates exceeded NOAEL TRVs for methylmercury (HQNOAEL=1.9), and

selenium (HQNOAEL=7.6); estimated doses of selenium (HQLOAEL=4.6) exceeded

LOAEL doses. Estimated doses of cadmium, lead, and zinc were less than

NOAEL doses (HQNOAEL<1).

� Mink: Estimated doses based on the ingestion of forage and piscivorous fish

slightly exceeded the NOAEL TRV for methylmercury (HQNOAEL=1.4), but did

not exceed the LOAEL TRV. Estimated doses of all other target metals were less

than NOAEL doses (HQNOAEL<1).

� Raccoon: Estimated doses for raccoons foraging on aquatic life stage

invertebrates, forage fish, and piscivorous fish exceeded NOAEL TRVs for

copper (HQNOAEL=1.2) and selenium (HQNOAEL=3.2); the estimated dose of

selenium (HQLOAEL=2) slightly exceeded the LOAEL dose. Estimated doses of

all other target metals were less than NOAEL doses (HQNOAEL<1).

8.3.2 Adjusted Area Use

The conservative assumptions of the maximum area use exposure evaluation presented in

the preceding section were revised to enable a more realistic and site-specific evaluation

of potential risk. The adjusted area use exposure scenario quantifies exposure based on

the proportion of the time that a receptor is likely to forage within the exposure area as a

function of its total foraging range. Area use-adjusted doses were calculated for each

receptor with the exception of belted kingfisher, tree swallow, and mink. Foraging areas

for these receptors are smaller than the exposure area; therefore, it is possible for

individual receptors to forage within the exposure area for their entire life span.

Therefore, the exposure calculations for these receptors conservatively assumed

maximum area use. The results of the adjusted area use exposure evaluation are

summarized in Table 28 and presented below:

� Belted kingfisher: Estimated doses were based on the maximum area use as

described above.

� Great blue heron: Area use adjusted doses based on the ingestion of forage and

piscivorous fish were less than NOAEL doses for target metals (HQNOAEL<1).

� Mallard: Area use adjusted doses for mallards foraging for aquatic life stage

invertebrates were less than NOAEL doses for target metals (HQNOAEL<1).

� Tree swallow: Estimated doses were based on the maximum area use as

described above.

� Indiana bat: Area use adjusted doses to Indiana bat foraging on emergent life

stage invertebrates were less than NOAEL doses for target metals (HQNOAEL<1).

� Mink: Estimated doses were based on the maximum area use as described above.

� Raccoon: Area use adjusted doses for raccoons foraging on aquatic life stage

invertebrates, forage fish, and piscivorous fish were less than NOAEL doses for

target metals (HQNOAEL<1).


64

8.4 Risk Characterization

The results of the exposure evaluation indicate that the greatest potential risk in the

SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex is associated with benthic invertebrate exposure to

sediments containing elevated concentration of target metals. Characterization of

potential risks is provided by each receptor category in the following sections.

8.4.1 Benthic Invertebrate Community

As summarized in Section 8.1.2, the SQT weight-of-evidence evaluation identified the

greatest impacts to benthic invertebrate communities at stations in closest proximity to

SWMU 22. The most severe benthic community impacts were identified at station SQT-

03, which contained a depauperate benthic community and acutely toxic sediments in

both sediment toxicity tests. Near bottom water quality measurements at SQT-03

indicate low pH conditions (pH = 3.3 and 1.44 in June and October, respectively); low

alkalinities in overlying water in sediment toxicity test chambers from SQT-03 are

consistent with the low pH conditions observed in the field (Appendix B). Benthic

communities at stations SQT-04, SQT-05, and SQT-06 were considered moderately

impacted based on benthic community impairment and significant lethal and sublethal

effects in sediment toxicity tests relative to reference stations. The greatest

concentrations of target metals in sediments were generally observed at these stations,

indicating that elevated concentrations of metals in sediments are a likely source of

impairment to the benthic invertebrate community.

Benthic invertebrate communities were unimpacted or likely unimpacted at stations with

increasing distance from SWMU 22. Benthic communities were considered likely

unimpacted at station SQT-01 and unimpacted at SQT-02, SQT-07, and SQT-08. The

condition of benthic invertebrate communities at stations SQT-01 and SQT-02 was

equivalent to or exceeded community condition in reference samples, despite significant

effects in Hyalella toxicity tests. Benthic community metrics at SQT-07 were influenced

by the high relative abundance of a detritivorous isopod exploiting large quantities of

organic root material present at the station; toxicity testing of sediments at SQT-07

indicated only minor reductions in Hyalella biomass that were not significantly lower

than control samples. No impacts were identified in benthic community analyses or

sediment toxicity testing at SQT-08, the station furthest from SWMU 22. Based on the

weight-of-evidence evaluation for these stations, exposures to benthic invertebrate

receptors are not likely to result in impacts that would affect community structure or

function.


65

The lack of benthic community impacts at stations SQT-01, SQT-02, SQT-07, and SQT-

08 indicates that the elevated concentrations of metals in sediments are not present in

forms that are toxic to invertebrates. Benthic invertebrate community exposure to metals

at these stations was considered moderate, with mean SEL-Q values ranging from 5.2

(SQT-02) to 10.2 (SQT-07). The lack of impacts identified in benthic community

analyses and sediment toxicity testing resulting from the exposure to metals in sediments

is likely attributed to the binding of divalent metals, particularly copper, lead, and zinc, to

organic carbon, sulfides, or other ligands in sediment that mitigate bioavailability and

toxicity (USEPA, 2007b; USEPA, 2005; Di Toro et al., 2005; Ankley et al., 2006;

Hansen et al., 1996; Ankley et al., 1991; Di Toro et al., 1992; and Luoma, 1989).

8.4.2 Fish Community

Exposure of fish to target metals in the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex is not likely to

result in adverse community-level effects. As demonstrated in the exposure evaluation,

direct contact exposure (gill absorption) to target metals in surface water is not likely to

result in adverse effects to fish or other aquatic life. Furthermore, potential exposure to

methylmercury has not resulted in fish from the site accumulating mercury in exceedance

of the tissue residue benchmark protective of juvenile and adult fish. Nor were levels in

site fish greater than in fish collected upstream from the site.

The results of the fish tissue presence/absence survey are consistent with the evaluation

of surface water and tissue exposure evaluations. The fish presence/absence survey

indicated similar fish taxa in areas with elevated concentrations of target metals relative

to upstream areas without elevated sediment concentrations. The findings of limited taxa

and the dominance of golden shiner observed in the presence/absence survey are

consistent with the lack of open water habitat. While it is acknowledged that the absence

of other fish taxa may not be definitively explained by habitat limitations alone, the

evaluation of direct contact surface water exposure and mercury bioaccumulation do not

indicate exposure related impacts to the fish community. Based on these combined lines

of evidence, adverse effects to the fish community in the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex

are not likely.

8.4.3 Semi-Aquatic Wildlife Community

Potential risks to wildlife exposed to target metals in the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex

are limited to receptors that forage exclusively within the exposure area. As presented in

the exposure evaluation (Section 8.3.2), area use adjusted doses were lower than NOAEL

TRVs for great blue heron, mallard, Indiana bat, and raccoon, which forage outside the

exposure area as a portion of their total foraging range (Table 28). Of the receptors

assumed to forage exclusively within the exposure area (belted kingfisher, tree swallow,

mink), the greatest potential risk was identified for tree swallow. Estimated doses for tree

swallow exceeded NOAEL TRVs for copper, mercury, methylmercury, and selenium and

LOAEL TRVs for methylmercury, copper, and selenium (Table 28). Estimated doses to

belted kingfisher exceeded NOAEL TRVs for methylmercury and selenium; the

estimated dose of selenium to mink slightly exceeded the NOAEL TRV.


66

The potential for adverse effects to tree swallow populations is highly uncertain due to

the estimation of target metal concentrations in emergent insects. As discussed in detail

in Appendix D, concentrations of target metals in emergent insects were estimated based

on measured concentrations in aquatic life stage invertebrates. Correction factors were

applied to aquatic life stage tissue concentrations to account for the shedding or

concentrating of metal body burden during the metamorphosis of larval/nymph stages to

adult stages. Uncertainty associated with these correction factors greatly influences the

exposure point concentration and resultant dose estimation.

Potential risks to belted kingfisher and mink foraging exclusively within the SWMU 1/22

Wetland Complex are not likely to result an adverse population-level effects based on

limited the exceedance of LOAEL doses. Estimated doses to belted kingfisher exceeded

NOAEL TRVs for methylmercury and selenium; however, estimated doses were

comparable to or below LOAEL TRVs. The estimated dose to mink foraging exclusively

within the exposure area slightly exceeded the NOAEL TRV for selenium

(HQNOAEL=1.4), but did not exceed the LOAEL.

Port Ewen, New York Active Plant Exposure Evaluation

67

9.0 ACTIVE PLANT EXPOSURE EVALUATION

As discussed in Section 7.2, the terrestrial exposure evaluation in the Active Plant Area

focused on potential risks to wildlife receptors that potentially forage on small mammals

and earthworms along the margins of the facility. Terrestrial wildlife exposure was

evaluated for the following scenarios based on the sampling design described in Section

5.1:




exposure for long-ranging receptors (red-tailed hawk and red fox).

The following sections present the results of the terrestrial exposure evaluation conducted

in the Active Plant Area of the Site.

9.1 Terrestrial Wildlife Exposure – Northern Grids

The terrestrial exposure evaluation for the Northern grids incorporated soil, earthworm,

and small mammal data collected from the three (3) northern sampling grids into the dose

rate model for terrestrial wildlife (Figure 10). The following sections present the

exposure evaluation for terrestrial wildlife based on a maximum area use scenario in the

Northern sampling grids. Table 29 presents HQs calculated based on comparisons of

modeled doses for the maximum area use scenario to NOAEL and LOAEL TRVs

(Appendix E). A summary of maximum area use exposure is presented below by

receptor (Table 29):

� American robin: Estimated doses associated with foraging for earthworms

exceeded NOAEL TRVs for cadmium (HQNOAEL=1.8), lead (HQNOAEL=3), and

selenium (HQNOAEL=46.8); the estimated dose of selenium exceeded the LOAEL

(HQLOAEL=23.4). Estimated doses of all other target metals were less than


� Red-tailed hawk: Estimated doses based on the ingestion of small mammals

exceeded the NOAEL and LOAEL TRVs for selenium (HQNOAEL=42.4 and

HQLOAEL=21.2) and slightly exceeded the NOAEL for zinc (HQNOAEL=1.5).

Estimated doses of all other target metals were less than NOAEL doses

(HQNOAEL<1).

� Short-tailed shrew: Estimated doses associated with foraging for earthworms

exceeded NOAEL TRVs for cadmium (HQNOAEL=2.8) and selenium

(HQNOAEL=103.6); the estimated dose of selenium exceeded the LOAEL

(HQLOAEL=62.8). Estimated doses of all other target metals were less than



68

� Red fox: Estimated doses based on the ingestion of small mammals exceeded the

NOAEL and LOAEL TRVs for selenium (HQNOAEL=34.5 and HQLOAEL=20.9).


(HQNOAEL<1).

9.2 Terrestrial Wildlife Exposure – Southern Grids

The following sections present the exposure evaluation for terrestrial wildlife based on a

maximum area use scenario in the Southern sampling grids. Table 30 presents HQs

calculated based on comparisons of modeled doses for the maximum area use scenario to

NOAEL and LOAEL TRVs (Appendix E). A summary of maximum area use exposure

is presented below by receptor (Table 30):

� American robin: Estimated doses associated with foraging for earthworms

exceeded NOAEL TRVs for lead (HQNOAEL=3.7), and selenium (HQNOAEL=14.5);

the estimated dose of selenium exceeded the LOAEL (HQLOAEL=7.2). Estimated

doses of all other target metals were less than NOAEL doses (HQNOAEL<1).


were less than NOAEL doses (HQNOAEL<1).

� Short-tailed shrew: Estimated doses associated with foraging for earthworms

exceeded NOAEL TRVs for lead (HQNOAEL=1.1) and selenium (HQNOAEL=64.6);

the estimated dose of selenium exceeded the LOAEL (HQLOAEL=39.2). Estimated

doses of all other target metals were less than NOAEL doses (HQNOAEL<1).

� Red fox: Estimated doses based on the ingestion of small mammals were less

than NOAEL doses (HQNOAEL<1).

9.3 Terrestrial Wildlife Exposure – Northern and Southern Grids

Exposure to terrestrial wildlife potentially foraging within the Active Plant Area was

evaluated using the combined exposure data collected from the six (6) sampling grids at

the margins of the facility. The following sections summarize the output of the models

for the two exposure scenarios evaluated for the Active Plant Area:

� Maximum Area Use Exposure; and

� Area Use Adjusted Exposure.

A complete description of the modeling approach is presented in Appendix D; detailed

model calculations are presented in Appendix E.

9.3.1 Maximum Area Use

The following sections present the exposure evaluation for long-ranging terrestrial

wildlife based on a maximum area use scenario for the Northern and Southern sampling

grids. Table 31 presents HQs calculated based on comparisons of modeled doses for the

maximum area use scenario to NOAEL and LOAEL TRVs (Appendix D). A summary

of maximum area use exposure is presented below by receptor (Table 31):


69


exceeded the NOAEL and LOAEL TRVs for selenium (HQNOAEL=16 and

HQLOAEL=8). Estimated doses of all other target metals were less than NOAEL

doses (HQNOAEL<1) except for zinc which was HQNOAEL=1.1.




(HQNOAEL<1).

9.3.2 Adjusted Area Use

The following sections present the exposure evaluation for long-ranging terrestrial

wildlife based on an adjusted area use scenario in the Northern and Southern sampling

grids. Table 31 presents HQs calculated based on comparisons of modeled doses for the

maximum area use scenario to NOAEL and LOAEL TRVs (Appendix D). A summary

of maximum area use exposure is presented below by receptor (Table 31):


exceeded the NOAEL and LOAEL TRVs for selenium (HQNOAEL=2.9 and

HQLOAEL=1.4). Estimated doses of all other target metals were less than NOAEL

doses (HQNOAEL<1).




(HQNOAEL<1).


The results of the terrestrial exposure evaluation at the margins of the Active Plant Area

indicate that the greatest potential risk to terrestrial wildlife is associated with exposure to

selenium. Estimated doses of selenium calculated based on measured concentrations in

earthworm and small mammal tissue exceeded NOAEL and LOAEL TRVs for both long-

ranging and short-ranging receptors. Estimated doses of other target metals including

cadmium, lead, and zinc, resulted in relatively minor exceedances of NOAEL TRVs;

estimated doses for these metals were below LOAEL TRVs for all receptors. Based on

these findings, selenium exposure represents the greatest potential risk to wildlife at the

margins of the Active Plant Area.

Potential risks associated with selenium exposure to wildlife are greatest in the northern

grids. As discussed in Section 5.1.2, selenium accumulation in earthworm and small

mammal tissues was greater in the northern grids relative to the southern grids. Selenium

accumulation in earthworm and small mammal tissues was particularly high in samples

from grids N1 and N3 in the northern plant area and resulted in elevated EPCs for

earthworms and small mammals in the dose rate models. As a result of these elevated

EPCs the estimated doses exceeded LOAEL TRVs for each receptor based on maximum

area use exposure.


70

Potential risks to wildlife in the southern grids are limited to low-level, short-ranging,

secondary consumers that forage on earthworms. Estimated doses to American robin and

short-tailed shrew based on measured concentrations of selenium in earthworms

exceeded LOAEL TRVs; HQs based on maximum use exposure to American robin and

short-tailed shrew were substantially lower than HQs in the northern grids. Estimated

doses to long-ranging receptors did not exceed NOAEL TRVs based maximum area use

foraging within the southern grids.

Calculations based upon estimated doses of selenium to top-tier, long-ranging wildlife

foraging throughout the Active Plant Area (both the northern grids and the southern

grids) indicate the potential for adverse effects from selenium based on LOAEL doses.

Maximum area use exposure to measured concentrations of selenium in small mammal

tissues resulted in HQLOAEL values of 8 and 7.7 for red-tailed hawk and red fox,

respectively; however, based on area use adjusted exposure, these HQLOAEL values are

reduced to 1.4 and 4.5 for red-tailed hawk and red fox, respectively.

As stated above, elevated concentrations of selenium in small mammal tissues from grids

N1 and N3 bias high the estimated doses used to represent exposure to top-tier wildlife

foraging throughout the Active Plant Area. For example, the UCL95 used as the EPC for

small mammal tissue from the combined northern and southern grids was 82.9 mg/kg dw.

Removing the elevated samples from grids N1 and N3 reduced the EPC to 3.2 mg/kg dw

based on the UCL95. By comparison, the small mammal tissue EPC that resulted in doses

below NOAEL TRVs for red-tailed hawk and red fox based on maximum area use was in

the southern grids was 4.0 mg/kg dw. Based on this analysis, excluding the elevated

small mammal tissue from the N1 and N3 grids would reduce exposure to red-tailed

hawk and red fox foraging throughout the Site to doses below NOAEL TRVs.

Elevated selenium concentrations in biota sampled in grids N1 and N3 were coincident

with the presence of several burning areas in this region of the Site (Figure 10). Grid N1

contained three open burning areas (SWMUs 6, 7, and 8) and several additional burning

areas were located immediately to the south of grid N1 (SWMUs 2, 3, 4, and 5). The

Burnable Waste Satellite Accumulation Area (SWMU 26G) was nearly completely

contained within SWMU 26G. Although uncertain, the combustion of off-specification

and waste materials in these burning areas may be associated with elevated

concentrations of selenium in biota.

The overall characterization of risks to wildlife associated with exposure to selenium is

uncertain due to a limited site-specific understanding of selenium speciation within the

soils and tissues of dietary items. The specific mechanisms influencing selenium

bioaccumulation in biota within the N1 and N3 grids are uncertain. As previously stated,

bioaccumulation relationships between soil and earthworms were highly variable

(Section 5.1.2). The variability in bioaccumulation relationships may be associated with

the confounding and potentially variable influence of particle-sorbed selenium in the gut

tract of the non-depurated earthworms, which may not accurately represent selenium

incorporated into earthworm tissues. Furthermore, total selenium analyses in soil do not

accurately represent the relative bioavailability of the various selenium species that may

be present in soils.


71

Differences in selenium species within tissues of dietary items also confound the

characterization of risk. TRVs for avian and mammalian receptors were based on

selenium doses administered as selenomethionine and potassium selenate, respectively

(Heinz et al., 1989; Rosenfeld and Beath, 1954). The relative toxicity of selenium

species generally follows from most to least toxic: hydrogen selenide ~

selenomethionine (in diet) > selenite ~ selenomethionine (in water) > selenate >

elemental selenium ~ metal selenides ~ methylated selenium compounds (Irwin et al.,

1998). Given the relative toxicities of selenium, understanding the relative

concentrations the different selenium species in dietary items is necessary to accurately

characterize the receptor dose. For example, in the aquatic environment Fan et al. (2002)

determined that the relatively toxic form selenomethionine was approximately 30 percent

of the total selenium in biological tissues in several trophic levels. Since the avian TRV

is based on a dose administered as selenomethionine, direct comparison of estimated

doses to this TRV assumes that the receptor dose is 100 percent selenomethionine. This

assumption likely overestimates the proportion of selenomethionine in the receptor diet.

Speciation of selenium in the tissues of dietary items would reduce the uncertainty

associated with risk characterization.

Port Ewen, New York Uncertainty Analysis

72

10.0 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS

An uncertainty analysis was performed to identify assumptions and procedures that may

result in either an upward or a downward bias in the estimation of exposure or the

characterization of risk. Assumptions and other factors that tend to overestimate,

underestimate, or have an unknown effect on the findings of the FWIA are presented

below with a discussion of their uncertainty. Discussions of uncertainty are organized by

three relevant phases of the FWIA with inherent uncertainty: sample design/data quality,

exposure evaluation, and risk characterization.

10.1 Sampling Design/Data Quality

The following uncertainties were identified relating to sample design/data quality issues.

10.1.1 Sampling Density

Sufficient sampling density is necessary to provide a representative estimate of exposure

to site-related constituents. Misrepresentation of exposure results in uncertainty, which

may lead to an overestimation or underestimation of risk. In this FWIA, the location and

number of soil, sediment, surface water, and biological samples were determined

considering historic data to provide a representative dataset to characterize exposure.

Areas not previously characterized, including the sediments in the site drainage channels,

sediments downstream of the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex, and soils at the SWMU 35

perimeter, were sampled at a sufficient density relative to the size of the each area. The

number and location of sampling points were selected in consultation with DFWMR

during the development of the Work Plan and subsequent discussions regarding specific

areas of the Site (e.g., downstream sediment characterization). Based on sampling

density, uncertainties associated with sampling design should have minimal influence on

FWIA conclusions.

While sufficient sediment sampling densities were incorporated into the FWIA Step IIC

study design to provide a realistic estimate of potential site risk, additional sediment

sampling may be needed to characterize metals distributions with sufficient resolution to

support remedial decision-making or design. Metals in sediments may be concentrated

along flow paths within the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex. Further characterization of

these migration pathways, particularly downgradient of the SWMU 22, may better define

areas of sediment impacts.

10.1.2 Data Quality

Data quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures for the FWIA Step IIC

investigations were conducted in accordance with the approved Work Plan (URS 2010).

QA/QC samples were collected at the prescribed frequencies and sample handling and

chain of custody procedures were implemented as specified in Section 6.0 of the Work

Plan.


73

Analytical data received from the laboratory were validated according to the procedure

outlined in the Site-Wide Quality Assurance Project Plan (URS, 2010). Laboratory data

were validated to determine conformance with the analytical method at a frequency of

one data package for each sample matrix. Data validation was conducted using the

USEPA document: SOP HW-2: Evaluation of Metals Data for the Contract Laboratory

Program based on SOW – ILM05.3 (September 2006, Rev. 13). Data validation reports

for each matrix are included in Appendix F.

The data validation process for FWIA Step IIC investigations identified one major

deficiency affecting field data. One matrix spike/spike duplicate (MS/SD) sample

associated with earthworm tissue (PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-05) did not recover (i.e., 0%)

for mercury; the associated sample results were qualified as “R”, for rejected. The matrix

interference with this sample resulted in the rejection mercury results reported for six

composite earthworm samples from the dataset.

One significant event occurred during the FWIA Step IIC field investigation that had the

potential to influence data quality. Two sample coolers containing sediment samples that

were shipped via overnight courier were delayed by approximately 24 hours. The sample

coolers were received by Test America at temperatures (between 12 and 13 degrees C)

exceeding guidance of 4 +/-2 degrees C. Because the sediment samples were being

analyzed for parameters that would not be affected by temperature (total recoverable

metals, grain size, TOC), the URS chemist qualified the results as estimated (J or UJ).

The circumstances associated with the sample coolers were communicated to DFWMR

via email. DFWMR concurred that the data would be usable in the FWIA as qualified

data (M. Crance, email communication).

10.2 Exposure Evaluation

Elements of uncertainty associated with the exposure evaluation include:

10.2.1 Toxicity of Metals Mixtures

The lack of appropriate toxicological information to characterize effects of multiple

chemicals acting jointly may overestimate or underestimate risk. Chemicals may act in

an additive, antagonistic, or synergistic manner when contacted directly or ingested by

wildlife. The extent to which different chemical classes interact to affect toxicity is not

known, and represents an uncertainty in the evaluation.

10.2.2 Mercury-Selenium Antagonism

The bioavailability and toxicity of selenium and mercury in sediment and soil represents

uncertainty because mercury and selenium commonly interact in the environment due to

their affinity for each other and similar biogeochemical cycling. The interactions are

generally referred to as a mercury-selenium antagonism. In the mercury-selenium

antagonism, selenium is known to limit the uptake of mercury by a wide variety of

organisms, and reduce mercury toxicity in birds and mammals.

Selenium has been found to confer resistance to the toxic effect of mercury in all

investigated species of mammals, birds, and fish (Ralston and Raymond 2010 and


74

references therein). The effect was first noticed in laboratory animals, where rats injected

with selenite and mercuric chloride had lower mortality than rats injected with mercuric

chloride alone (Parizek and Ostadalova, 1967). There are several proposed mechanisms

for antagonism within biological systems, including the formation of insoluble mercury

selenide (HgSe) (Yang et al., 2008), and supplying additional selenium to continue the

synthesis of selenoproteins in target tissue (e.g., brain; Ralston and Raymond, 2010).

The role of selenium in mediating mercury uptake and, presumably, toxicity in ecological

systems is most widely studied in aquatic systems. Several studies have observed

declines in fish tissue mercury concentrations after the addition of selenite (Rudd et al.,

1980; Rudd and Turner, 1983a, 1983b; Turner and Rudd, 1983; Turner and Swick, 1983;

Paulsson and Lundbergh, 1991), or selenite rich loads of total selenium in surface water

(Southworth et al., 2000). In each of these studies, significant declines in mercury

concentrations in fish tissue or mercury assimilation rates were observed. These results

have been replicated in systems with selenium gradients resulting from the distance to

coal deposition of combustion (e.g., coal or metal smelters), where inverse trends

between mercury and selenium have been established in organisms from a variety of

trophic levels (Speyer, 1980; Chen et al., 2001; Belzile et al., 2006; Sackett et al., 2010).

There is also support that the selenium-mercury antagonism may occur in terrestrial

environments, particularly in plant uptake of mercury. Amending soil with selenium

decreased the uptake of mercury by the roots of radish (Raphanus sativus) plants

(Shanker et al., 1996a) and tomato plants (Shanker et al., 1996b), due to the formation of

relatively insoluble Hg-Se species in soil. Further research has indicated that mercury

may form a complex with a selenoprotein in the root fraction, which prevents

translocation to other parts of the plant (Afton and Caruso, 2009). The effect of selenium

on plant uptake and the potential for added selenium to form strong, insoluble complexes

with mercury has led to proposals to use selenium amendments to soil to reduce mercury

bioavailability in soil and in receiving waters (Yang et al., 2008). It is also possible that

co-occurring concentrations of selenium and mercury in soil may, in effect, lead to

decreased uptake of both mercury and selenium in plant tissues.

10.2.3 Identification of Causal Relationships in Sediment Toxicity Testing

Identifying causal relationships between toxic effects observed in sediment toxicity tests

and concentrations of individual target metals may be confounded by numerous factors.

Test organisms may be affected by the mixture of metals present in sediment samples,

which may result in antagonistic or synergistic effects on toxicity. In addition to

chemical stressors, differences in sediment matrices that influence microhabitats directly

related to test organism exposure (e.g., organic carbon content, acid volatile sulfide

concentrations, grain size distribution) may influence the results of laboratory bioassays.

Despite these limitations in identifying direct causal relationships, toxicity test endpoints

were evaluated relative to target metal concentrations to identify consistencies in toxic

effects and concentrations gradients. These consistencies may be considered in risk

management decision-making to mitigate potential impacts to benthic invertebrate

communities.


75

10.2.4 Metal Bioavailability

Chemical analyses of soils and sediments measured total concentrations of metals rather

than the more bioavailable or toxic forms. Comparisons of total concentrations to

toxicological benchmarks were based on the assumption that no physicochemical factors

limited receptor exposure or the potential for toxic expression of metals. This uncertainty

varies by metal depending on physicochemical characteristics. It is likely that, to some

degree, metals adsorb to fine-grain particles and/or complex with chemical agents and

organic ligands in the exposure media. Such actions may change the chemical speciation

of the metal to a less toxic form, or reduce the concentrations of bioavailable chemicals

and subsequent uptake by receptors. The use of the total concentrations to estimate

exposure does not take into account these changes in speciation or reductions in toxicity

and therefore, undoubtedly overestimates risk when compared to toxicological

benchmarks derived from more bioavailable and toxic forms.

10.2.5 Selection of Receptors:

The FWIA cannot evaluate the potential for adverse effects on every plant and animal

species that may be present and potentially exposed at the Site. As a result,

representative receptors were selected based on trophic category, particular feeding

behaviors, and availability of life history information, to represent several similarly

exposed species at the Site. If the receptors evaluated in the assessment are more or less

sensitive to exposure to site-related constituents than some receptor populations existing

at the Site, the results may overestimate or underestimate overall ecological risk at the

Site.

Receptors evaluated in the FWIA provide an adequate representation of potential risks to

wildlife that may forage in exposure areas at the Site. Receptors were selected in

consultation with DFWMR and key receptor exposure parameters, including home

ranges, ingestion rates (food and substrate), were reviewed with DFWMR during the data

review and analysis phase of the investigation. These consultations were designed to

minimize uncertainty in the overall analysis.

10.2.6 Area Use Factors

Because it is unrealistic to expect wide-ranging receptors to live and feed exclusively in a

limited area, AUFs were incorporated into the FWIA to estimate exposure more

accurately based on the proportion of time a receptor would likely utilize an exposure

area. Area use factors estimate the average proportion of time a receptor may spend in a

specific exposure area based on the size of the exposure area relative to the size of the

receptor home range. While in the short term, the incorporation of AUFs may

underestimate risk if the receptor is active within the exposure area for a greater

proportion of time, over longer periods of time, this is expected to average out.

Conversely, if habitat quality is diminished to the point that a receptor avoids the

exposure area, the area use factor may overestimate exposure. Given the disturbed nature

of the Active Plant Area and the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex, it is not likely that

receptors will preferentially forage in these areas for a greater proportion of time than

anticipated based on AUFs.


76

Home ranges used to calculate AUFs for the FWIA were selected to minimize the

underestimation of exposure. Relevant home range data were compiled for each receptor

and home ranges were selected based on conservative estimates from similar habitats;

selected home ranges were reviewed with DFWMR to ensure adequate conservatism in

AUFs. The level of conservatism incorporated into the selection of home ranges is not

likely to underestimate receptor exposure and more likely results in an overestimation of

exposure.

10.2.7 Evaluation of Population- and Community-Level Effects

Because the complexity of community and population dynamics, it is not currently

possible to evaluate all possible exposures or effects. The information presented, while

complete and accurate, may have missed long-term influences to the environmental

chemistry of metals found at the Site. It also may have failed to address adaptation of

natural communities to the unique site conditions. In addition, while ecological functional

redundancies contributed by unevaluated species may provide resiliency against adverse

effects at the community and ecosystem levels, sensitivities may be present in other

populations that have not been evaluated in the current studies. In either case, the studies

presented are only estimated representations of conditions as they exist at the Site, and it

is virtually certain that not all of the underlying variability and stressor effects have been

quantified. Therefore, it is important to recognize that (1) potentially large uncertainties

exist regarding community and population health, but (2) these uncertainties most

probably do not directionally bias conclusions.

Further, it is important to recognize that substantial differences exist between

observations and conclusions made at the individual, population, and community levels

of biological organization. For example, effects manifested at the population or

community levels resulting from the effects to only a few individuals may not be

observable with the type of studies implemented. The ramifications of this also include an

understanding that because the assessment level endpoints are protective of populations

(not individuals), risks projected to cause loss of a few individuals may not cause impacts

that are important at the levels of assessment where risk management decisions are made,

(i.e., populations and communities).

The analysis performed for this assessment did not account for some Site-specific factors

such as adaptive tolerance, adaptive reproductive potential, the small size of the affected

area compared to the range of most species populations, and recruitment from similar

adjoining areas. Such factors would tend to mitigate the degree and ecological

significance of loss or impairment of a portion of ecological population(s) due to both

chemical and physical stressors in the area. As a result, the approach used in this

assessment likely results in overestimation of risk.


Uncertainties in characterizing risks are primarily associated with the assumption that an

HQ greater than 1.0 is an adequate indicator of the potential for ecological risks of

individual chemicals. Given the use of conservative exposure and effects assumptions,

there is minimal uncertainty that the potential for ecological risks from exposure to


77

individual metals were not identified in the evaluation. Conversely, there is a possibility

of false positive identification of ecological risks for some individual metals. The

influence of HQs on risk characterization may underestimate, but more likely

overestimates risk.

10.4 Summary of Uncertainty Analysis

The FWIA Step IIC investigation used conservative assumptions and estimates to

evaluate potential ecological impacts in the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex and the

margins of the Active Plant Area. The data evaluation approach was reviewed with

DFWMR during the data evaluation/reporting phase and modified as necessary to

achieve a satisfactory level of conservatism. Because conservative estimates or

assumptions were made for most factors considered in the assessment, there is confidence

that the conclusions of the FWIA are adequately conservative to identify potential

adverse effects to ecological receptor populations.

Port Ewen, New York Conclusions and Recommendations

78

11.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The objective of this FWIA Step IIC investigation was to collect adequate and

representative data to assess potential ecological impacts on the Dyno Nobel Site. The

Work Plan (URS, 2010) for this investigation was approved by NYSDEC and specific

study elements of this work were developed in close coordination with NYSDEC

DFWMR. Additionally, the data evaluation approach was developed in consultation with

NYSDEC DFWMR through multiple meetings and conference calls. The following

sections present the conclusions of the FWIA Step IIC investigations and provide

recommendations to support remedial-decision making to address ecological exposure at

the Site.

11.1 SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex

Comprehensive investigations were conducted in the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex to

evaluate potential ecological risk associated with metals concentrations in surface water,

sediments, and biological tissues. Based upon the results of these investigations, the

following is concluded:

� The SQT weight-of-evidence evaluation indicated that impacts to benthic

invertebrate communities occurred at stations adjacent to SWMU 22 (SQT-03,

SQT-04, SQT-05, and SQT-06) that contained the greatest concentrations of

target metals in sediments;

� Benthic invertebrate impacts decreased with distance from SWMU 22 and were

not measureable at the station with the greatest distance from SWMU 22 (SQT-8);

� The incidence of significant lethal and sublethal effects on benthic test organisms

in sediment toxicity tests were most consistent with concentration gradients of

selenium and lead;

� Levels of target metals in surface water were generally below surface water

criteria; therefore, exposure of fish and other aquatic life to target metals is not

likely to result in adverse community-level effects. In addition, a fish

presence/absence survey and comparisons of mercury concentrations in fish tissue

to a conservative tissue residue benchmark also indicate that there is little

potential for adverse effects to fish populations; and

� Potential risks to wildlife exposed to target metals were limited to receptors that

forage exclusively within the exposure area; the potential for adverse effects was

greatest for tree swallow, however, the estimation of the dose to tree swallow was

highly uncertain.

The findings of the exposure evaluation for the select receptor communities support the

following recommendations to address ecological exposure in the SWMU 1/22 Wetland

Complex:


79

� Develop preliminary sediment remedial goals for benthic invertebrate

communities at concentrations representing thresholds between ‘likely

unimpacted’ and ‘likely impacted’ stations identified in the weight-of-evidence

SQT evaluation;

� Develop preliminary sediment remedial goals for semi-aquatic wildlife using dose

rate models based on LOAEL TRVs and site-specific sediment-to-biota

bioaccumulation relationships developed in FWIA Step IIC investigations; and

� Modify the current CMS to include pathway elimination for sediments exceeding

preliminary sediment remedial goals for benthic invertebrate communities and

assure that UCL95 concentrations in residual sediments not addressed through

pathway elimination do not exceed preliminary sediment remedial goals for

wildlife.

11.2 Active Plant Area

The exposure evaluation in the Active Plant Area focused on risks to wildlife receptors

that potentially forage on at the margins of the facility. The findings of the exposure

evaluation support the following conclusions regarding exposure to terrestrial wildlife:

� The greatest potential risks to terrestrial wildlife are associated with exposure to

selenium consumed in earthworms and small mammals;

� Potential risks associated with selenium exposure to wildlife are greatest in the

northern grids N1 and N3, which are associated with burning areas used to

combust off-specification and waste materials;

� Excluding the elevated tissue concentrations in N1 and N3, potential risks to top-

tier, long-ranging receptors foraging throughout the Site are negligible; and

� Selenium bioaccumulation is highly variable and uncertain based on non-

depurated earthworm tissue and total selenium analyses in soil; bioaccumulation

relationships derived from site-specific data are not reliable for developing

preliminary remedial goals for soil.

The findings of the terrestrial wildlife exposure evaluation support the following

recommendations to address ecological exposure at the margins of the Active Plant Area:

� Preliminary remedial goals for terrestrial wildlife exposure to selenium should not

be derived based on the highly variable and uncertain soil bioaccumulation

relationships observed in FWIA Step IIC data; further understanding of selenium

bioaccumulation and toxicity are needed prior to making informed remedial

decisions.

� Further evaluation of soil bioaccumulation relationships for selenium should be

based on depurated tissue samples and soil analyses that represent bioavailable

forms of selenium;

� Further evaluation of selenium bioaccumulation should consider selenium uptake

dynamics in similar soil types within the region that are outside of the influence of

the Site;


80

� Selenium speciation analyses should be conducted on tissue samples to identify

appropriate LOAEL TRVs for comparisons to doses estimated by dose rate

modeling; and

� Given the frequent disturbance of plant activities in the Active Plant Area, risk

management decision-making for terrestrial wildlife exposure to selenium should

focus primarily on the protection of top-tier, long-ranging receptors, e.g., red fox

and red hawk.

11.3 Additional Site Characterizations

Additional characterizations of site-related metals in soil and sediments from select areas

of the Site support the following conclusions and recommendations:

� SWMU 35 Perimeter Soil: Soil results from the perimeter of SWMU 35 indicate

that target metals are not migrating downgradient of the landfill and are not likely

to result in adverse effect to ecological receptors. No further evaluation of soils

downgradient of SWMU 35 is warranted; and

� Site Drainage Sediments: Elevated concentrations of site-related metals at

various sediment depth intervals within the site drainages indicate that the two

drainage ditches that traverse the Site may represent historic migration pathways

of site-related metals. Further evaluation of remedial alternatives for the SWMU

1/22 Wetland Complex should consider this potential migration pathway.

References

81

12.0 REFERENCES

Afton, S.E. and J. A. Caruso. 2009. The effect of Se antagonism on the metabolic fate of Hg in

Allium fistulosum. J. Anal. At. Spectrom., vol. 24, no. 6, p. 759–766.

Ankley, G.T., Thomas, N.A., Di Toro, D.M., Hansen, D.J., Mahony, J.D., Berry, W.J., Swartz,

R.C., Hoke, R.A., Garrison, A.W., Allen, H.E., and C.S. Zarba. 2006. Assessing potential

bioavailability of metals in sediments: A proposed approach. Environmental

Management. 18:331-337.

Ankley, G.T., Di Toro, D.M., Hansen, D.J., and Berry, W.J. 1996. Technical Basis and Proposal

for Deriving Sediment Quality Criteria for Metals. Env. Tox. and Chem. 15:2056-2066.

Ankley, G.T., et al. 1991. Acid volatile sulfide as a factor mediating cadmium and nickel

bioavailability in contaminated sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.

10:1299-1307.

Barbour, M.T., Gerritsen, J., Snyder, B.D., and Stribling, J.B., 1999, Rapid Bioassessment

Protocols For Use In Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, benthic

macroinvertebrates, and fish, Second edition: EPA 841-B-99-002. Office of Water, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

Bay, S., Berry, W., Chapman, P.M., Fairey, R. Gries, T., Long, E., MacDonald, D., and S.B.

Weisberg. 2007. Evaluating consistency of best professional judgment in the application

of a multiple lines of evidence Sediment Quality Triad. Integrated Environmental

Assessment and Management. 3: 491-497.

Bay, S.M. and S.B., Weisberg. 2010. Framework for interpreting sediment quality triad data.

Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management. Aug 3 2010.

Beckvar, N., Dillon, T.M., and L.B. Read. 2005. Approaches for linking whole-body fish tissue

residues of mercury or DDT to biological effects thresholds. Environmental Toxicology

and Chemistry 24:2094-2105.

Belzile, N., Y. Chen, J.M. Gunn, J. Tong, Y. Alarie, T. Delonchamp, and C. Lang. 2006. The

effect of selenium on mercury assimilation by freshwater organisms. Canadian Journal of

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63:1-10.

Chapman P.M., Dexter, R.N., and E.R. Long. 1987. Synoptic Measures of Sediment

Contamination, Toxicity, and Infaunal Community Composition (The Sediment Quality

Triad) In San Francisco Bay. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Series 37:75-96.

Chapman, P.M. and J. Anderson. 2005. A decision-making framework for sediment

contamination. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management. 1: 163-173.

Chapman, P.M. 2007. Do not disregard the benthos in sediment quality assessments!. Marine

Pollution Bulletin 54: 633-635.

Chen, Y., N. Belzile, and J.M. Gunn. 2001. Antagonistic effect of selenium on mercury

assimilation by fish populations near Sudbury Metal Smelters? 46:7:1814-1818.

Di Toro, D.M., Mahony, J.D., Hansen, D.J., Scott, K.J., Carlson, A.R. and Ankley, G.T. 1992.

Acid Volatile Sulfide Predicts the Acute Toxicity of Cadmium and Nickel in Sediments.

Env. Sci. and Tech. 26:96-101.

References

82

Di Toro, D.M., Mahony, J.D., Hansen, D.J., Scott, K.J., Hicks, M.B., Mayr, S.M., M.S

Redmond. 2005. Predicting sediment metal toxicity using a sediment biotic ligand model:

methodology and initial application. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 24: 2410-

2427.

Eckenfelder/Brown and Caldwell. 1999. RCRA Facility Investigation Report. December 1999.

Eckenfelder Engineering, P.C. 1994. RCRA Facility Assessment. Dyno Nobel Port Ewen Plant,

Port Ewen, NY.

Eckenfelder Engineering, P.C. 2000. Corrective Measures Study. Dyno Nobel Port Ewen

Plant, Port Ewen, NY.

Edinger, G.J., D.J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T.G. Howard, D.M. Hunt, and A.M. Olivero (editors).

2002. Ecological Communities of New York State. Second Edition. A revised and

expanded edition of Carol Reschke's Ecological Communities of New York State. (Draft

for review). New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY.

Fairey, R., Long, E.R., Roberts, C.A., Anderson, B.S., Phillips, B.M., Hunt, J.W., Puckett, H.R.,

and C.J. Wilson. 2001. An evaluation of methods for calculating mean sediment quality

guideline quotients as indicators of contamination and acute toxicity to amphipods by

chemical mixtures. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 20: 2276-2286.

Fan TWM, Hinton DE, Higashi RM (2002) The selenium biotransformations into proteinaceous

forms by food web organisms of selenium-laden drainage waters in California. Aquat

Toxicol 57:65–84.

Hansen, D.J. et al. 1996. Predicting the toxicity of metal-contaminated field sediments using

acid-volatile sulfide normalizations. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 15: 2080-

2094.

Heinz, G.H., D.J. Hoffman and L.G. Gold. 1989. Impaired Reproduction of Mallards Fed an

Organic Form of Selenium. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 53:418-428.

HydroQual. 2005. Corrective Measures Study Supplement. Dyno Nobel Port Ewen Plant, Port

Ewen, NY. October 2005

HydroQual. 2006. Corrective Measures Study Revisions. Dyno Nobel Port Ewen Plant, Port

Ewen, NY. September 2006.

Irwin, R.J., M. VanMouwerik, L. Stevens, M.D. Seese, and W. Basham. 1998. Environmental

Contaminants Encyclopedia. National Park Service, Water Resources Division, Fort

Collins, Colorado.

Jenkins, R.E. and N.M. Burkhead. 1993. Freshwater Fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries

Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Johnston, E.L. 2010. Evidence from chronically exposed populations of aquatic organisms. In

Romeo M., Rainbow P.S., Amiard-Rriquet C., eds. Tolerance to Contaminants. CRC,

Boca Raton, FL, USA, pp 25-46.

References

83

King, R.S. and C.J. Richardson. 2007. Subsidy-stress response of macroinvertebrate community

biomass to a phosphorus gradient in an oligotrophic wetland ecosystem. Journal of the

North American Benthological Society. 26(3):491-508.

Klerks, P.L. and J.S. Levinton. 1989. Rapid evolution of metal resistance in a benthic

oligochaete inhabiting a metal-polluted site. Biol Bull 176:135-141.

Long, E.R. and P.M. Chapman. 1985. A Sediment Quality Triad: Measures Of Sediment

Contamination, Toxicity, And Infaunal Community Composition In Puget Sound. Marine

Pollution Bulletin. 16:405-415.

Long, E.R., and L.G. Morgan, 1990. The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment-Sorbed

Contaminants Tested in the National States and Trends Program. National Oceanic

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Technical Memorandum No. 5, OMA52, NOAA

National Ocean Service, Seattle, Washington.

Luoma, S.N. 1989. Can we determine the biological availability of sediment-bound trace

elements? Hydrobiologia 176/177:379-396.

McDonald, M.V. 1998. Kentucky Warbler. The Birds of North America, No. 324, 1998.

McPherson, C., Chapman, P.M., deBruyn, A.M.H., and L. Cooper. 2008. The importance of

benthos in weight of evidence sediment assessments – A case study. Science of the Total

Environment 394: 252- 264.

Nagpal, N.K., Pommen, L.W., and L.G. Swain. 1995. Approved and working criteria for water

quality guidelines for British Columbia. ISBN 0-7726-3774-1. Water Quality Branch.

Ministry of Environment. Lands and Parks. Victoria, British Columbia. 28 pp.

NYSDEC. 1994. Fish and Wildlife Impact Analysis for Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites.

Division of Fish, Wildlife, and Marine Resources. October 1994.

NYSDEC. 1999. Technical Guidance for Screening Contaminated Sediments. NYSDEC,

Division of Fish, Wildlife, and Marine Resources. January 25, 1999.

NYSDEC. 2009. Standard Operating Procedure: Biological Monitoring of Surface Waters in

New York State. Division of Water. NYSDEC SOP 208-09. November 24, 2009.

NYSDEC. 2003. Procedures for the Collection and Preparation of Aquatic Biota for

Contaminant Analysis. Division of Fish, Wildlife, and Marine Resources. January 2003.

OECD. 2004. Test guideline 218 Sediment-Water Chironomid Toxicity Test Using Spiked Sediment.

Parízek, J. and I. Ošt’ádalová. 1967. The protective effect of small amounts of selenite in

sublimate intoxication. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, vol. 23, no. 2, p. 142–143.

Paulsson, K. and K. Lundbergh. 1991. Treatment of mercury contaminated fish by selenium

addition. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 56:833-841.

Persaud, D., Jaagumagi, R., and A. Hayton, 1992. Guidelines for the Protection and

Management of Aquatic Sediment Quality in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of the

Environment, Queen's Printer for Ontario.

Ralston, N.V., Ralston, C.R., Blackwell, J.L., and L.J. Raymond. 2008. Dietary and tissue

selenium in relation to methylmercury toxicity. Neurotoxicology. 29: 802-811.

References

84

Reschke, C. 1990. Ecological Communities of New York State. New York Natural Heritage

Program. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Latham, N.Y.

96p.

Rosenfeld, I. and O.A. Beath. 1954. Effect of selenium on reproduction in rats. Proc. Soc. Exp.

Biol. Med. 87:295-297.

Rudd, J.W., M.A. Turner, B.E. Townsend, A. Swick, and A. Furutani. 1980. Dynamics of

selenium in mercury-contaminated experimental freshwater ecosystems. Canadian

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37:848-857.

Rudd, J.W. and M.A. Turner. 1983a. The English – Wabigoon River System: II. Selenium in Lake

Enclosures: Suppression of Mercury and Selenium Bioaccumulation by Suspended and

Bottom Sediments. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 40:2218-2227.

Rudd, J.W., and M.A. Turner. 1983b. The English – Wabigoon River System: V. Mercury and

selenium bioaccumulation as a function of aquatic primary productivity. Canadian

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 40:2251-2259.

Sackett D.K., D. D. Aday, J. A. Rice, W. G. Cope, and D. Buchwalter. 2010. Does proximity to

coal-fired power plants influence fish tissue mercury? Ecotoxicology, p. 1–11.

Shanker, K. et al. 1996a. Study of mercury-selenium (Hg—Se) interactions and their impact on

Hg uptake by the radish (Raphanus sativus) plant. Food and chemical toxicology, vol.

34, no. 9, p. 883–886.

Shanker, K. et al. 1996b. Effect of selenite and selenate on plant uptake and translocation of

mercury by tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum). Plant and soil, vol. 183, no. 2, p. 233–

238.

Smith, C.L. 1985. The Inland Fishes of New York State. New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY. 522 p.

Southworth, G.R., M.J. Peterson, and M.G. Ryon, M.G. 2000. Long-term increased

bioaccumulation of mercury in largemouth bass follows reduction of waterborne

selenium. Chemosphere 41: 1101-1105.

Speyer, M.R.1980. Mercury and selenium concentrations in fish, sediments, and water of two

northwestern Quebec lakes. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology.

24:427-432.

Turner, M.A. and J.W. Rudd. 1983. The English – Wabigoon River System: III. Selenium in Lake

Enclosures: Its Geochemistry, Bioaccumulation, and Ability to Reduce Mercury

Bioaccumulation. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 40:2228-2240.

Turner, M.A. and A.L. Swick. 1983. The English – Wabigoon River System: IV. Interaction

between Mercury and Selenium Accumulated from Waterborne and Dietary Sources by

Northern Pike (Esox lucius). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences

40:2241-2250

URS. 2007. Ecological Evaluation Site Description Report. Dyno Nobel Site. Port Ewen, New

York. December 2007.

References

85

URS. 2009. Fish and Wildlife Impact Analysis Report. Dyno Nobel Site. Port Ewen, New York.

April 3, 2009.

URS. 2010. Fish and Wildlife Impact Analysis Step IIC Investigation Work Plan. Dyno Nobel

Site. Port Ewen, New York. April 30, 2010.

USEPA. 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R-95/002F.

USEPA. 2001. Methods for Collection, Storage and Manipulation of Sediments for Chemical

and Toxicological Analyses: Technical Manual. EPA 823-B-01-002. U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 2000. Methods for Measuring Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated

Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates: Second Edition. U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. EPA 600/R-99/064.

USEPA. 2005. Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks (ESBs) for the Protection of

Benthic Organisms: Metals Mixtures (Cadmium, Copper, Lead, Nickel, Silver, and Zinc).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Office of Science and Technology and Office of

Research and Development. 600-R-02-013. January 2005.

USEPA. 2007a. Ecological Soil Screening Levels. Various Constituents. U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/ecotox/ecossl/.

USEPA. 2007b. Framework for metals risk assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Office of the Science Advisor. EPA 120/R-07/001. March 2007.

Yang, D.Y, Y. W. Chen, J. M. Gunn, and N. Belzile. 2008. Selenium and mercury in organisms:

interactions and mechanisms. Environmental Reviews, vol. 16, no. NA, p. 71–92.

TABLES

TABLE 1

SUMMARY OF NEAR-BOTTOM SURFACE WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS - SQT STATIONS

FWIA STEP IIC INVESTIGATION

DYNO NOBEL PORT EWEN SITE

PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

June October June October June October June October June October June October June October June October

PE-SQT-01

Black unconsolidated sediment becoming

increasingly cohesive with depth; stiff clay

encountered at 12-14 inches below sediment

surface; sediment reducing (degassing when

disturbed)

6/14 10/27 18 36 - 48 23.37 17.18 8.5 11.7 97.8 NM 7.43 6.52 0.115 0.449 -2.9 -48.8

PE-SQT-02

Black fluidized silt with coarse particulate

organic material (CPOM); becoming more

cohesive with depth; stiff gray clay at ~12

inches; sediment reducing (degassing when

disturbed)

6/15 10/27 12 - 18 12 22.32 17.15 6.73 2.2 77.3 NM 7.08 6.90 0.119 0.398 -6.9 57.2

PE-SQT-03

Brown/black silt with high fine particulate

organic material (FPOM) and little CPOM; stiff

clay encountered at ~10 inches below

sediment; periphyton at surface; sediment

reducing (degassing when disturbed)

6/23 10/28 18 18 28.25 16.67 4.09 6.0 52.1 62.0 3.33 1.44 0.292 3.026 186 510.4

PE-SQT-04

CPOM (leaf pack) layer ~3 inches thick at

surface of sediment; underlying sediment

decomposing CPOM and silt; stiffer clay/silt

layer encountered at ~8 inches below sediment

6/17 10/28 8 10 18.56 12.52 6.5 4.5 70.1 42.3 7.33 7.20 0.267 1.027 92.1 97.5

PE-SQT-05

Dark brown fluidized silt becoming increasingly

cohesive with depth; stiff clay encountered at

~10 inches below sediment surface; CPOM at

surface transitioning to FPOM with depth;

sediments reducing (degassing when disturbed)

6/15 10/27 10 12 25.35 16.96 5.7 2.4 69.3 24.5 7.08 6.75 NM 0.397 11.9 43.3

PE-SQT-06

Thick Phragmites root mat at surface of

sediment; highly organic sediments consisting

predominantly of decaying Phragmites to stiff

gray clay layer at ~11 inches below sediment

surface; sediment reducing (degassing when

disturbed)

6/14 10/28 6 - 8 6 15.83 11.28 0.8 1.4 7.9 13.0 6.92 6.56 0.154 0.681 -74.1 -20.3

PE-SQT-07

Phragmites detritus layer ~2 inches thick at

sediment surface; underlying sediment silt with

CPOM and FPOM; stiff clay encountered at ~8

below sediment surface

6/17 10/27 12 12 20.42 16.16 5.59 4.9 62 49.5 7.12 6.87 0.125 0.400 -21.2 44.5

PE-SQT-08

Dark brown silt with organic root mat and

detritus; stiff, light gray clay encountered at ~8

inches below sediment surface

6/17 10/27 6 - 12 12 17.51 15.38 5.99 5.8 62.7 57.8 7.09 7.06 0.12 0.504 -3.6 61.7

PE-SQT-09

Phragmites detritus layer at sediment surface;

underlying sediment silt with decaying

Phragmites vegetative material; sediments

increasingly silts/clays with depth; stiff clay

encountered at ~8 below sediment surface

6/16 10/29 12 36 17.26 10.74 2.32 2.1 24 18.5 6.65 6.65 0.051 0.192 32.3 -27.7

PE-SQT-10






6/16 10/29 36 36 18.15 11.12 3.76 3.7 39.8 33.1 6.89 6.83 0.053 0.200 17.1 -16.3

PE-SQT-11






6/16 10/29 36 42 - 48 18.58 11.11 3.18 2.3 32.9 21.3 6.98 6.73 0.059 0.210 59.7 -30.3

Notes:

NM, Measurement not recorded.

Specific

Conductivity

Oxidation-Reduction

Potential (mV)Sample Date 2010

Sediment Quality

Triad Station

pHWater Depth (in) Temperature (oC)

Dissolved Oxygen

(mg/L)

Dissolved Oxygen

(% Saturation)Substrate Characteristics

TABLE 2

SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR TARGET METALS - SQT SEDIMENT STATIONS



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

LEL1

SEL2

Metals

Cadmium mg/kg 11 11 0.22 26.6 0.6 9.0 0.84 0.83 0.22 3.1 2 26.6 8.4 3.3 2.3 2 1.1

Copper mg/kg 11 11 37.2 18,800 16 110 702 J' 524 J' 12600 J' 8070 J' 1790 J' 18800 J' 4390 J' 2300 J' 68 J' 68.4 J' 37.2 J'

Lead mg/kg 11 11 36.2 2,060 31 110 251 592 1850 J' 353 2060 474 224 128 58.1 56.7 36.2

Mercury mg/kg 11 11 0.19 82.4 0.15 1.3 57.4 8.3 61.1 27.8 3.5 82.4 12.2 24.8 0.29 0.32 0.19

Selenium mg/kg 11 11 5.20 198 5.00 -- 35.6 71 198 38.6 170 78.2 33.2 16.4 8.4 11 5.2

Zinc mg/kg 11 11 26.2 2,110 120 270 174 150 26.2 1270 246 2110 623 404 85.9 81.3 68.3

Other Sediment Parameters

Percent Solids % 11 11 18.3 41.9 NA NA 24.0 21.2 41.9 25.7 18.3 19.9 19.0 23.6 21.0 23.5 39.3

Total organic carbon % 11 11 4.32 28.1 NA NA 6.64 4.32 5.57 5.42 6.52 10.6 8.35 4.93 21.4 28.1 11.8

Notes:J Result is estimated due to a minor quality control anomaly

U Result is a non-detect < the detection limit (DL)

B' Estimated result; less than the RL

J' Method blank contamination

E' Matrix interference

1, LEL, lowest effect level; sediment screening criterion for selenium is based on a value from Nagpal et al. (1995) for British Columbia

2, SEL, severe effects level

Bold results indicate a sediment concentration exceeding the LEL; shaded results indicate a concentration exceeding the SEL

Maximum

Detected

Concentration

Reference SQT StationsSWMU 1/22 SQT StationsNYSDEC Sediment Criteria

PE-SQT-06 PE-SQT-07 PE-SQT-08 PE-SQT-09 PE-SQT-10 PE-SQT-11PE-SQT-01 PE-SQT-02 PE-SQT-03 PE-SQT-04 PE-SQT-05

Analyte UnitsNumber of

Samples

Number of

Detections

Minimum

Detected

Concentration

TABLE 3

PEARSON CORRELATION MATRIX OF SEDIMENT TARGET METALS CONCENTRATIONS - SWMU 1/22 WETLAND COMPLEX



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Cadmium Copper Lead Mercury Selenium Zinc

Cadmium 1

Copper 0.732 1

Lead -0.261 0.115 1

Mercury 0.542 0.752 -0.074 1

Selenium -0.149 0.284 0.973 0.104 1

Zinc 0.88 0.72 -0.36 0.463 -0.282 1

Pearson Correlation (r)

TABLE 4

SUMMARY OF DETECTED CONSTITUENTS - REFERENCE SQT SEDIMENT



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Analyte Units Number of Samples Number of DetectionsMinimum Detected

Concentration

Maximum Detected

Concentration

Sediment

Criteria

Sediment Criteria

Source

Maximum

Concentraton Exceeds

Criteria?

Metals

Aluminum mg/kg 3 3 14,200 18,100 NS -- -- 18,100.0J'

14,200.0J'

15,200.0J'

Antimony mg/kg 3 3 0.22 0.39 2 NYSDEC LEL No 0.36B' J'

0.39B' J'

0.22B' J'

Arsenic mg/kg 3 3 3.20 7.00 6 NYSDEC LEL Yes 4.9 7 3.2

Barium mg/kg 3 3 192 208 NS -- -- 208 192 192

Beryllium mg/kg 3 3 0.97 1.50 NS -- -- 1.5 1.3 0.97

Chromium mg/kg 3 3 16.20 18.20 26 NYSDEC LEL No 18.2J'

16.2J'

17.4J'

Cobalt mg/kg 3 3 5.00 5.60 50 USEPA Region III No 5.5 5 5.6

Iron mg/kg 3 3 14,100 18,600 20,000 NYSDEC LEL No 15,000.0 18,600.0 14,100.0

Manganese mg/kg 3 3 134 223 460 NYSDEC LEL No 223.0 134.0 217.0

Nickel mg/kg 3 3 16.60 23.30 16.0 NYSDEC LEL Yes 22.3J'

23.3J'

16.6J'

Silver mg/kg 3 3 0.20 0.33 1.0 NYSDEC LEL No 0.32 0.33 0.20

Thallium mg/kg 3 3 0.22 0.26 NS -- -- 0.26 0.22 0.24

Vanadium mg/kg 3 3 25.50 35.60 NS -- -- 35.6 34.7 25.5

Organochlorine Pesticides

4,4'-DDE µg/kg 3 3 3.0 8.9 118.0 NYSDEC1 No 4.3 7.7 3.0 PG''

gamma-BHC µg/kg 3 3 1.3 2.2 NS -- -- 2.2 J'' PG'' 1.9 J'' PG'' 1.3 J'' PG''

alpha-BHC µg/kg 3 1 0.71 0.71 NS -- -- 0.71 J'' PG'' 4.30 U 2.60 U

Dieldrin µg/kg 3 1 0.42 0.42 1,062 NYSDEC1 No 4.0 U 4.3 U 0.42 J'' PG''

Endrin µg/kg 3 1 0.9 0.9 472.0 NYSDEC1 No 4.0 U 4.3 U 0.9 J'' PG''

Volatile Organic Compounds

Xylenes µg/kg 3 3 39.0 100.0 10,856 NYSDEC1 No 71.0 U 96.0 39.0

Toluene µg/kg 3 2 6.8 7.1 5,782 NYSDEC1 No 24.0 U 6.8 J'' 13.0 U

Acetone µg/kg 3 1 41.0 41.0 NS -- -- 95.0 U 41.0 J'' 51.0 U

Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds

Fluoranthene µg/kg 3 2 48 49 120,360 NYSDEC1 No 310 U 49 J'' 200 U

Pyrene µg/kg 3 2 47 58 113,398 NYSDEC1 No 310 U 58 J'' 200 U

Benzaldehyde µg/kg 3 1 2,000 2,000 NS -- -- 1,500 U 2,000 1,000 U

Butyl benzyl phthalate µg/kg 3 1 210 210 11,000 USEPA EcoTox No 210 J'' 1,700 U 1,000 U

Phenanthrene µg/kg 3 1 57 57 14,160 NYSDEC1 No 310 U 57 J'' 200 U


Total Organic Carbon % 3 2 48 49 120,360 NYSDEC1 No 21.4 28.1 11.8

Notes:PG''

Front and rear chromatography columns display >40% differenceJ''

Estimated result; less than the RLU

Result is a non-detect < the detection limit (DL)B''

Method blank contamination

1, Technical Guidance for Screening Contaminated Sediments (NYSDEC 1999); based on benthic aquatic life chronic toxicity assuming the lowest total organic carbon concentration of 11.8%

NS, No standard available

PE-SQT-09 PE-SQT-10 PE-SQT-11

TABLE 5

VOC/SVOC SEDIMENT ANALYSES - PE-SD-SQT-03



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Analyte Unit Result Analyte Unit Result

Volatile Organic Compounds (Method 8260B) Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (Method 8270C)

trans-1,3-Dichloropropene µg/kg 24 U Anthracene µg/kg 650 U

Acetone µg/kg 98 U Fluoranthene µg/kg 650 U

Ethylbenzene µg/kg 24 U Fluorene µg/kg 650 U

Trichlorofluoromethane µg/kg 24 U Hexachlorobenzene µg/kg 650 U

2-Hexanone µg/kg 24 U Hexachlorobutadiene µg/kg 650 U

Isopropylbenzene µg/kg 24 U Hexachlorocyclopentadiene µg/kg 3200 U

Methyl acetate µg/kg 24 U Hexachloroethane µg/kg 3200 U

Methylcyclohexane µg/kg 24 U Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene µg/kg 650 U

Methylene chloride µg/kg 24 U Isophorone µg/kg 3200 U

4-Methyl-2-pentanone µg/kg 24 U Atrazine µg/kg 3200 U

Benzene µg/kg 24 U 2-Methylnaphthalene µg/kg 650 U

Styrene µg/kg 24 U 2-Methylphenol µg/kg 3200 U

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane µg/kg 24 U 4-Methylphenol µg/kg 3200 U

Tetrachloroethene µg/kg 24 U Naphthalene µg/kg 650 U

Toluene µg/kg 7.9 J 2-Nitroaniline µg/kg 17000 U

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene µg/kg 7.4 J 3-Nitroaniline µg/kg 17000 U

1,1,1-Trichloroethane µg/kg 24 U 4-Nitroaniline µg/kg 17000 U

1,1,2-Trichloroethane µg/kg 24 U Nitrobenzene µg/kg 6500 U

Trichloroethene µg/kg 24 U 2-Nitrophenol µg/kg 3200 U

1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane µg/kg 24 U 4-Nitrophenol µg/kg 17000 U

Vinyl chloride µg/kg 24 U Benzo(a)anthracene µg/kg 650 U

Xylenes (total) µg/kg 73 U N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine µg/kg 650 U

Methyl tert-butyl ether µg/kg 24 U N-Nitrosodiphenylamine µg/kg 3200 U

Bromodichloromethane µg/kg 24 U Benzo(b)fluoranthene µg/kg 650 U

Bromoform µg/kg 24 U Benzo(k)fluoranthene µg/kg 650 U

Bromomethane µg/kg 24 U Benzo(ghi)perylene µg/kg 650 U

2-Butanone µg/kg 24 U Benzo(a)pyrene µg/kg 650 U

Carbon disulfide µg/kg 4.6 J Pentachlorophenol µg/kg 3200 U

Carbon tetrachloride µg/kg 24 U Phenanthrene µg/kg 650 U

Chlorobenzene µg/kg 24 U Phenol µg/kg 650 U

Dibromochloromethane µg/kg 24 U Pyrene µg/kg 650 U

1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane µg/kg 24 U Acetophenone µg/kg 3200 U

Chloroethane µg/kg 24 U 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol µg/kg 3200 U

Chloroform µg/kg 24 U 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol µg/kg 3200 U

Chloromethane µg/kg 24 U Carbazole µg/kg 650 U

Cyclohexane µg/kg 24 U bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane µg/kg 3200 U

1,2-Dibromoethane µg/kg 24 U bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether µg/kg 650 U

1,2-Dichlorobenzene µg/kg 24 U bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate µg/kg 6500 U

1,3-Dichlorobenzene µg/kg 24 U Benzaldehyde µg/kg 3200 U

1,4-Dichlorobenzene µg/kg 24 U 1,1'-Biphenyl µg/kg 3200 U

Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/kg 24 U 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether µg/kg 3200 U

1,1-Dichloroethane µg/kg 24 U 2,2'-oxybis(1-Chloropropane) µg/kg 650 U

1,2-Dichloroethane µg/kg 24 U Butyl benzyl phthalate µg/kg 3200 U

1,1-Dichloroethene µg/kg 24 U Acenaphthylene µg/kg 650 U

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene µg/kg 24 U Caprolactam µg/kg 17000 U

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene µg/kg 24 U 4-Chloroaniline µg/kg 3200 U

1,2-Dichloropropane µg/kg 24 U 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol µg/kg 3200 U

cis-1,3-Dichloropropene µg/kg 24 U 2-Chloronaphthalene µg/kg 650 U

Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (Method 8270C) 2-Chlorophenol µg/kg 3200 U

Acenaphthene µg/kg 650 U 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether µg/kg 3200 U

Diethyl phthalate µg/kg 3200 U Chrysene µg/kg 650 U

2,4-Dimethylphenol µg/kg 3200 U Dibenz(a,h)anthracene µg/kg 650 U

Dimethyl phthalate µg/kg 3200 U Dibenzofuran µg/kg 3200 U

Di-n-octyl phthalate µg/kg 3200 U Di-n-butyl phthalate µg/kg 3200 U

4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol µg/kg 17000 U 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine µg/kg 3200 U

2,4-Dinitrophenol µg/kg 17000 U 2,4-Dichlorophenol µg/kg 650 U

2,4-Dinitrotoluene µg/kg 3200 U Total Sulfide Method 9030B/9034

2,6-Dinitrotoluene µg/kg 3200 U Total Sulfide mg/kg 823

Sulfate Method 9056A

Notes: Sulfate mg/kg 8110

U, Result is a non-detect , the detection limit (DL) Other Sediment Parameters

Percent Solids % 20.5

TABLE 6

EXTRACTABLE PETROLEUM HYDROCARBON SEDIMENT ANALYSES - PE-SD-SQT-03



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Massachusetts Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbon (EPH) Method

Analyte Unit Result

Acenaphthene mg/Kg 10 U

Acenaphthylene mg/Kg 10 U

Anthracene mg/Kg 10 U

Benzo[a]anthracene mg/Kg 10 U

Benzo[a]pyrene mg/Kg 10 U

Benzo[b]fluoranthene mg/Kg 10 U

Benzo[g,h,i]perylene mg/Kg 10 U

Benzo[k]fluoranthene mg/Kg 10 U

Chrysene mg/Kg 10 U

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene mg/Kg 10 U

Fluoranthene mg/Kg 10 U

Fluorene mg/Kg 10 U

Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene mg/Kg 10 U

2-Methylnaphthalene mg/Kg 10 U

Naphthalene mg/Kg 10 U

Phenanthrene mg/Kg 10 U

Pyrene mg/Kg 10 U

C11-C22 Aromatics (unadjusted) mg/Kg 2600

C11-C22 Aromatics (Adjusted) mg/Kg 2600

C19-C36 Aliphatics mg/Kg 13000

C9-C18 Aliphatics mg/Kg 580

Total EPH mg/Kg 16000

Percent Moisture % 81

Notes:

U, Result is a non-detect , the detection limit (DL)

TABLE 7

SUMMARY OF SUMMER BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE COMMUNITY ANALYSES - JUNE 2010



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

SQT Station

SQT Station

Benthic Replicate A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C

Percent Subsampled 33.33 43.67 62.5 44.84 50 43.67 100 100 62.5 100 66.67 100 45.87 8.33 29.15 100 100 100 28.09 50 25.51 25 33.33 33.33 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Ephemeroptera Callibaetis sp. 4 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Odonata Aeshnidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Coenagrionidae 1 3 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Corduliidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lestes sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

Libellulidae 1 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hemiptera Belostoma sp. 0 0 *1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Belostomatidae 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Corixidae 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

Naucoridae 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Neoplea sp. 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Notonecta sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Trichocorixa sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Coleoptera Dubiraphia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Dytiscidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Matus sp. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

Megaloptera Chauliodes sp. 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

Sialis sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Diptera-Chironomidae Ablabesmyia mallochi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ablabesmyia peleensis 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0

Chironomini 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chironomus sp. 3 1 2 0 1 1 63 50 113 0 26 39 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 4 2 2 9 11 3 0 0 0 8 1 4

Clinotanypus sp. 0 0 0 2 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Corynoneura sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cricotopus bicinctus gr. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cricotopus sp. 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Cryptochironomus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cryptotendipes sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Dicrotendipes sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

Endochironomus sp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kiefferulus sp. 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 3

Larsia sp. 22 25 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Limnophyes sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Micropsectra sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Microtendipes pedellus gr. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Natarsia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Orthocladiinae Species C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Orthocladius annectens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Paramerina sp. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Parametriocnemus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Paratanytarsus sp. 4 2 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

Paratendipes sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Phaenopsectra sp. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Polypedilum fallax gr. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Polypedilum halterale gr. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Polypedilum scalaenum gr. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Polypedilum trigonus 6 15 6 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 0

Polypedilum tritum 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Procladius sp. 7 3 5 11 12 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pseudochironomus sp. 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Stenochironomus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tanypus sp. 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tanytarsus sp. 1 0 0 4 10 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 33 42 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Thienemannimyia gr. sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Zavrelimyia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 9 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SQT-09 SQT-10 SQT-11

SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex SQT Stations Reference Wetland SQT Stations

SQT-01 SQT-02 SQT-03 SQT-04 SQT-05 SQT-06 SQT-07 SQT-08

TABLE 7

SUMMARY OF SUMMER BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE COMMUNITY ANALYSES - JUNE 2010



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

SQT Station

SQT Station

Benthic Replicate A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C

Percent Subsampled 33.33 43.67 62.5 44.84 50 43.67 100 100 62.5 100 66.67 100 45.87 8.33 29.15 100 100 100 28.09 50 25.51 25 33.33 33.33 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100




Diptera Anopheles sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bezzia/Palpomyia sp. 3 0 2 0 0 0 2 6 4 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0

Ceratopogoninae 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0

Chaoborus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 5

Chrysops sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pilaria sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Sphaeromias sp. 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Stratiomyidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tabanidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tipula sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Tipulidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Trichoptera Limnephilidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Limnephilus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Phylocentropus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Gastropoda Ferrissia sp. 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Gyraulus sp. 2 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 9 2 1

Micromenetus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Physa sp. 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 1 8 11 9 3 23 5 2

Planorbella sp. 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Planorbula sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pseudosuccinea columella 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bivalvia Musculium sp. 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pisidium sp. 0 0 0 6 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 4 36 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sphaeriidae 10 0 8 12 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 1 0 0

Annelida Aulodrilus pluriseta 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Dero flabelliger 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Dero vaga 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Desserobdella phalera 4 1 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Enchytraeidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Erpobdella sp. 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Helobdella sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Helobdella stagnalis 0 1 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0

Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 106 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lumbriculidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 16 6 16 3 3 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

Naididae 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tubificidae w/ cap setae 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tubificidae w/o cap setae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

Acari Acari 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Arrenurus sp. 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

Limnesia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Crustacea Caecidotea sp. 1 0 0 40 14 44 0 1 0 1 0 0 67 80 71 27 13 2 89 67 80 16 9 24 11 7 13 1 8 8 37 11 20

Crangonyx sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 0 6 14 16 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hyalella sp. 22 20 10 6 29 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 29 21 19 1 0 0 1 0 2 12 2 2

Ostracoda 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other Organisms Nematoda 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 100 98 90 96 95 100 69 66 127 43 134 80 106 100 111 51 43 32 107 101 105 116 105 101 40 38 37 29 19 22 106 29 41

Number per sample 300 224.4 144 214.1 190 229 69 66 203.2 43 201 80 231.1 1200 380.8 51 43 32 380.9 202 411.6 464 315 303 40 38 37 29 19 22 106 29 41

Number per m2 13045 9757 6261 9308 8261 9956 3000 2870 8835 1870 8739 3478 10047 52195 16556 2217 1870 1391 16562 8783 17896 20174 13697 13175 1739 1652 1609 1261 826.1 956.5 4609 1261 1783

Taxa Richness 23 23 17 17 20 24 5 7 6 7 4 10 8 5 5 7 12 4 9 13 9 19 21 20 12 13 9 12 4 10 18 12 10

,_ ,_

-

,_ ,_

-- -

-

TABLE 8

SUMMARY OF FALL BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE COMMUNITY ANALYSES - OCTOBER 2010



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

SQT Station

SQT Station

Benthic Replicate A B,C1

A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C

Percent Subsampled 100 100 100 100 87.72 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Ephemeroptera Baetidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Caenis sp. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Odonata Aeshna sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Aeshnidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Anisoptera 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ischnura sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Libellulidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0Libellulidae/Corduliidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Hemiptera Neoplea sp. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Pelocoris sp. 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Coleoptera Agabus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0Colymbetinae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Elmidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Megaloptera Sialis sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Diptera-Chironomidae Clinotanypus sp. 0 0 7 0 1 0 0 0 3 8 8 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Diplocladius sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Larsia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Limnophyes sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Natarsia sp. 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Paraphaenocladius sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Paratendipes sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Pentaneurini 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Polypedilum scalaenum gr. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Polypedilum tritum 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Procladius sp. 0 0 3 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Tanypus sp. 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Tanytarsus sp. 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Thienemannimyia gr. sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Zavrelimyia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Diptera Bezzia/Palpomyia sp. 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Bittacomorpha sp. 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ceratopogoninae 0 0 6 0 8 0 0 0 0 7 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 1 0Chaoborus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0Chrysops sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Diptera 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Myxosargus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Odontomyia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Pseudolimnophila sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Sphaeromias sp. 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Stratiomyidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0




- .._ - -- - -

- - -- -

- - -

- - -- -

- - - ------- -- - - - -

- -- - -- - -

---- - - -

- --- -------

- - -

- r,-- --

- --

- - -- - -

--

- -

- .------------,

TABLE 8

SUMMARY OF FALL BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE COMMUNITY ANALYSES - OCTOBER 2010



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

SQT Station

SQT Station

Benthic Replicate A B,C1

A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C

Percent Subsampled 100 100 100 100 87.72 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100




Trichoptera Agrypnia sp. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Limnephilidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Limnephilus sp. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0Oligostomis sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Phylocentropus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Polycentropodidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ptilostomis sp. 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lepidoptera Crambidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Lepidoptera 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0

Gastropoda Gyraulus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0Planorbella sp. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0Planorbidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Planorbula sp. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bivalvia Musculium sp. 0 0 14 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Pisidium sp. 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 1 15 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Sphaeriidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 1 0 0

Annelida Enchytraeidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Erpobdella sp. 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Helobdella sp. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Helobdella stagnalis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Lumbriculidae 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Tubificidae w/o cap setae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Acari Arrenurus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0Limnesia sp. 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Crustacea Amphipoda 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Caecidotea sp. 0 0 24 7 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 62 0 0 0 29 12 26 2 0 0 3 1 1 3 2 0 9 0 0Crangonyx sp. 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Hyalella sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0Ostracoda 0 0 6 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

Other Organisms Nematoda 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Turbellaria 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0TOTAL 7 12 81 9 105 0 0 0 5 23 22 55 2 85 0 1 4 47 19 41 16 3 5 15 2 7 7 16 1 25 1 0

Number per sample 7 12 81 9 119.7 0 0 0 5 23 22 55 2 85 0 1 4 47 19 41 16 3 5 15 2 7 7 16 1 25 1 0

Number per m2 304.3 260.9 3522 391.3 5204 0 0 0 217.4 1000 956.5 2391 86.96 3696 0 43.48 173.9 2043 826.1 1783 695.7 130.4 217.4 652.2 86.96 304.3 304.3 695.7 43.48 1087 43.48 0Taxa Richness 6 3 17 2 17 0 0 0 3 8 8 8 2 8 0 1 2 9 8 10 7 3 4 6 2 7 5 10 1 7 1 0

Notes:

1, Replicates B and C at SQT-01 were inadvertently composited by the taxonomic laboratory; the taxa counts represent the organisms sorted from the composited sample.

TABLE 9

SUMMARY OF TOXICITY TESTING ENDPOINTS - 42 DAY HYALELLA AZTECA SURVIVAL, GROWTH, AND REPRODUCTION SEDIMENT TOXICITY TEST



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

PE-SQT-01 PE-SQT-02 PE-SQT-03 PE-SQT-04 PE-SQT-05 PE-SQT-06 PE-SQT-07 PE-SQT-08 PE-SQT-09 PE-SQT-10 PE-SQT-11

Day 28

Mean Percent Survival 61.7% 64.2% 0.0% 25.8% 9.2% 35.0% 70.8% 70.8% 83.3% 80.0% 80.8% 87.5%

Standard Error 6.1% 6.2% 0.0% 5.1% 3.6% 7.9% 5.8% 6.0% 4.8% 4.3% 3.6% 4.8%

Statistical Difference Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No

Mean Biomass (mg dw) 0.313 0.234 0 0.054 0.035 0.038 0.205 0.308 0.418 0.469 0.409 0.369

Standard Error 0.077 0.067 0.000 0.026 0.021 0.015 0.017 0.101 0.034 0.058 0.020 0.061

Statistical Difference No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Day 35


Standard Error 6.2% 4.6% 0.0% 6.0% 3.9% 6.7% 7.3% 6.1% 6.4% 6.4% 4.4% 8.5%

Statistical Difference Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No

Day 42


Standard Error 5.9% 4.6% 0.0% 5.7% 3.9% 6.8% 8.0% 7.5% 6.4% 6.5% 4.6% 8.4%

Statistical Difference Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No


Standard Error 0.0848 0.0527 0.0000 0.0602 0.0508 0.0558 0.0991 0.0944 0.0748 0.0755 0.0425 0.1041

Statistical Difference Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Mean Number per Female 2.31 2.646 0 2.517 0.5 0.583 3.364 6.944 6.667 5.682 5.862 6.479

Standard Error 1.448 0.709 0.000 1.488 0.000 0.600 0.997 2.109 2.332 1.509 1.619 2.166

Statistical Difference No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No

EndpointSWMU 1/22 SQT Stations Reference SQT Stations

Laboratory

Control

Juvenile

Production

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Survival

Biomass

Survival

Survival

Biomass

I I

I I I I

I I I I

I I I I

I I I I

I I I I

I I I I

TABLE 10

SUMMARY OF TOXICITY TESTING ENDPOINTS - CHIRONOMUS RIPARIUS CHRONIC EXPOSURE SEDIMENT EVALUATION



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

PE-SQT-01 PE-SQT-02 PE-SQT-03 PE-SQT-04 PE-SQT-05 PE-SQT-06 PE-SQT-07 PE-SQT-08 PE-SQT-09 PE-SQT-10 PE-SQT-11

Day 10


Standard Error 8.7% 18.0% 0.0% 2.5% 19.6% 2.5% 5.0% 4.8% 4.8% 24.4% 4.8% 2.5%

Statistical Difference No No Yes No No No No No


Standard Error 0.071 0.125 0.000 0.045 0.071 0.049 0.042 0.045 0.096 0.025 0.086 0.073

Statistical Difference No No Yes No Yes No No No

Emergence

Mean Days 14.93 15.44 16.33 15.82 16.61 14.32 15.9 15.36 14.31 14.46 16.81 13.56

Standard Error 0.89 1.03 0.03 1.14 1.44 0.25 1.28 0.73 0.49 0.20 0.82 0.45

Statistical Difference No No No Yes Yes No No No

Mean Percent Emergence 83.8% 87.5% 10.0% 94.4% 88.8% 87.5% 96.3% 95.0% 88.8% 83.8% 60.0% 86.9%

Standard Error 9.6% 10.9% 157.2% 3.6% 4.8% 9.5% 5.3% 3.0% 6.8% 8.4% 17.7% 6.9%

Statistical Difference No No Yes No No No No No

Time to

EmergenceNot Applicable

Percent

EmergenceNot Applicable

Biomass

Not Applicable

EndpointSWMU 1/22 SQT Stations Reference SQT Stations

Laboratory

Control

Survival

Not Applicable

I I

I I I I

I I I I

I I I I

I I I I

TABLE 11

SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR TARGET METALS - DOWNSTREAM SEDIMENT STATIONS



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

LEL1

SEL2

Metals

Cadmium mg/kg 5 5 0.45 1.9 0.6 9.0 1.9 1 1.7 E' 0.45 0.78

Copper mg/kg 5 5 179 2,440 16 110 2020 2440 1410 246 179

Lead mg/kg 5 5 25.9 77.3 31 110 77.3 51.4 52.3 25.9 40.6

Mercury mg/kg 5 5 1.1 45.3 0.15 1.3 25.5 45.3 25.4 3.4 1.1

Selenium mg/kg 5 5 1.3 7.7 5.00 -- 7.7 4.3 5.1 E' 1.3 2

Zinc mg/kg 5 5 89.3 270 120 270 270 249 226 89.3 185


Percent Solids % 5 5 17.2 61 NA NA 17.2 40.6 32.4 61 44.2

Total Organic Carbon % 5 5 2 8 NA NA 7.14 4.25 7.75 2.08 4.82

Notes:

If the result is > the reporting limit (RL), then [x] is non-detect at the sample concentration; if the result is < the RL, then [x] is non-detect at the RL.U

Result is a non-detect < the detection limit (DL)E'

Matrix interference



Bold results indicate a sediment concentration exceeding the LEL; shaded results indicate a concentration exceeding the SEL

PE-DNS-SD-04

(0-1.0)

NYSDEC Sediment Criteria

Analyte UnitSNumber of

Samples

Number of

Detections

Minimum

Detected

Concentration

Maximum

Detected

Concentration

PE-DNS-SD-01

(0-1.0)

PE-DNS-SD-01

(1-1.5)

PE-DNS-SD-02

(0-1.0)

PE-DNS-SD-03

(0-1.0)

TABLE 12

SWMU 1/22 SURFACE WATER STATIONS - SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Metals

U µg/L 9 0 ND ND NA 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U

F µg/L 9 0 ND ND 2.52 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U

U µg/L 9 9 0.33 19 NA 3.30 2.40 18.60 3.00 3.70 5.90 0.81 B' 1.30 B' 0.33 B'

F µg/L 9 6 1.90 12 14.1 2.00 1.90 B' 12.00 2.00 2.60 4.40 0.93 U (2.0) 1.50 U (2.0) 0.68 U (2.0)

U µg/L 9 9 0.072 0.96 NA 0.16 B' 0.15 B' 0.07 B' 0.96 B' 0.58 B' 0.40 B' 0.10 B' 0.46 B' 0.11 B'

F µg/L 9 9 0.04 0.26 4.9 0.06 B' 0.19 B' 0.04 B' 0.26 B' 0.25 B' 0.20 B' 0.11 B' 0.18 B' 0.14 B'

U µg/L 9 0 ND ND NA 0.20 U 0.20 U 0.20 U 0.20 U 0.20 U 0.20 U 0.20 U 0.20 U 0.20 U

F µg/L 9 0 ND ND 0.77 0.20 U 0.20 U 0.20 U 0.20 U 0.20 U 0.20 U 0.20 U 0.20 U 0.20 U

U µg/L 9 1 0.49 0.49 NA 5.00 U 5.00 U 0.49 B' 5.00 U 5.00 U 5.00 U 5.00 U 5.00 U 5.00 U

F µg/L 9 3 0.5 1.4 4.6 5.00 U 0.86 B' 1.40 B' 0.50 B' 5.00 U 5.00 U 5.00 U 5.00 U 5.00 U

U µg/L 9 9 1.3 7.2 NA 3.90 B' 2.70 B' 4.90 B' 7.20 1.70 B' 2.80 B' 2.20 B' 3.70 B' 1.30 B'

F µg/L 9 6 1.3 4.5 101.2 4.50 B' 1.90 B' 3.70 B' 2.60 B' 2.30 B' 4.50 B' 3.40 U (5.0) 3.00 U (5.0) 1.30 U (5.0)

Other Water Quality Parameters

Total Suspended Solids U mg/L 9 3 2 4 4 4.00 U 4.00 U 4.00 U 4.00 U 4.00 U 4.00 U 2.00 B' 3.60 B' 2.00 B'

Hardness U mg/L 9 9 54.7 156 156 133.00 128.00 156.00 132.00 127.00 133.00 54.70 71.60 80.00

Notes:

If the result is > the reporting limit (RL), then [x] is non-detect at the sample concentration; if the result is < the RL, then [x] is non-detect at the RL.U

Result is a non-detect < the detection limit (DL)B'

Estimated result; less than the RLJ'

Method blank contamination

1, U, Unfiltered sample; F, Filtered (0.45 µm) sample

ND, Analyted was not detected in any sample

NA, Not applicable; NYSDEC SWQS are based on filtered surface water results.

SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex Stations

Selenium

Zinc

Analyte Sample

Type1 Units

Cadmium

Copper

Lead

Reference StationsMinimum

Detected

Concentration

Maximum

Detected

Concentration

Mercury

Number of

SamplesPE-SW-07 PE-SW-08 PE-SW-09

Number of

DetectionsNYSDEC SWQS

PE-SW-01 PE-SW-02 PE-SW-03 PE-SW-04 PE-SW-05 PE-SW-06

TABLE 13

FISH COMMUNITY PRESENCE/ABSENCE SURVEY RESULTS - SWMU 1/22 WETLAND COMPLEX



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

NumberMean Length

(mm) (+/- SE)

Mean Weight

(g) (+/- SE)Number

Mean Length

(mm) (+/- SE)

Mean Weight

(g) (+/- SE)Number

Mean Length

(mm) (+/- SE)

Mean Weight

(g) (+/- SE)

Golden Shiner

(Notemigonus crysoleucas)96 80 (4) 6.2 (1.2) 79 79 (4) 5.8 (1) 81 91 (3) 8.3 (1.1)

Largemouth Bass

(Micropterus salmoides)1 135 34.6 0 NC NC 0 NC NC

American Eel

(Anguilla rostrata)0 NC NC 0 NC NC 6 364 (42) 112.2 (36.5)

Notes:

NC, Not calculated; taxon was not present in sampling reach.

Species

Upstream Site Downstream

TABLE 14

SUMMARY OF BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE TISSUE ANALYSES - SWMU 1/22 WETLAND COMPLEX



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Cadmium mg/kg, ww 8 8 0.03 0.94 0.078 0.043 0.061 0.154 0.944 0.044 0.171 0.031

Copper mg/kg, ww 8 8 10.30 171 15.2 16.9 78.3 64.9 171 14.5 53.1 10.3

Mercury ng/g,ww 8 8 18.60 270 69.9 30.9 70.9 18.6 26.8 64.7 270 30.2

Methylmercury ng/g,ww 8 8 0.68 45.70 22.1 17.7 17 5.37 0.68 45.7 17.5 22.8

Lead mg/kg, ww 8 8 0.29 6.65 0.285 J-M 1.85 J-M 0.446 J-M 6.65 J-M 3 J-M 1.11 M 0.782 J-M 0.304 J-M

Selenium mg/kg, ww 8 8 0.42 8.51 0.65 2.4 1.04 4.63 8.51 1.76 2.84 0.42

Zinc mg/kg, ww 8 8 20.30 42 20.6 42 25.9 31.8 37.8 22.6 33 20.3

Notes:

If the result is > the reporting limit (RL), then [x] is non-detect at the sample concentration; if the result is < the RL, then [x] is non-detect at the RL.J-M

Result is estimated; duplicate precision percent difference associated with QC sample was not within acceptance criteria.M

Result is estimated; duplicate precision percent difference was not within acceptance criteria.

1, ww, Results expressed on a wet weight basis

ReferenceSWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex SQT Stations

Analyte Units1 Number of

Samples

Number of

Detections

Minimum

Detected

Concentration

Maximum

Detected

Concentration PE-SQT-BITIS-08 PE-SQT-BITIS-11PE-SQT-BITIS-01 PE-SQT-BITIS-02 PE-SQT-BITIS-04 PE-SQT-BITIS-05 PE-SQT-BITIS-06 PE-SQT-BITIS-07

TABLE 15

SUMMARY OF FISH TISSUE RESULTS



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Mean +/- SE Min Max Mean SE Min Max Mean SE Min Max

Golden Shiner

Cadmium mg/kg ww 0.0063 0.0014 0.0033 0.0114 0.0065 0.0026 0.0030 0.0166 0.0098 0.0005 0.0081 0.0108

Copper mg/kg ww 1.620 0.140 1.248 2.105 1.722 0.381 0.710 2.944 2.135 0.324 1.272 3.146

Mercury ng/g ww 56.1 5.5 40.8 73.0 77.8 5.4 63.7 96.0 97.7 9.5 72.5 119.1

Methylmercury ng/g ww 57.5 8.9 32.9 82.0 77.1 5.0 59.7 89.6 94.4 12.9 61.6 124.9

Lead mg/kg ww 0.038 0.016 0.017 0.100 0.131 0.028 0.043 0.196 0.040 0.011 0.021 0.076

Selenium mg/kg ww 0.395 0.016 0.336 0.426 0.911 0.120 0.667 1.288 1.145 0.095 0.916 1.396

Zinc mg/kg ww 38.364 5.040 19.387 48.395 43.229 3.616 37.094 53.591 39.034 1.987 33.566 42.955

Largemouth Bass

Cadmium mg/kg ww 0.0031

Copper mg/kg ww 1.418

Mercury ng/g ww 49.7

Methylmercury ng/g ww 49.1

Lead mg/kg ww 0.056

Selenium mg/kg ww 0.322

Zinc mg/kg ww 42.187

American Eel

Cadmium mg/kg ww 0.0257 0.0059 0.0465 0.0132

Copper mg/kg ww 1.548 0.551 3.659 0.572

Mercury ng/g ww 98.7 22.8 187.6 66.7

Methylmercury ng/g ww 86.9 18.1 156.1 56.2

Lead mg/kg ww 0.039 0.011 0.067 0.019

Selenium mg/kg ww 1.984 0.115 2.212 1.663

Zinc mg/kg ww 16.087 1.231 19.797 13.129

Notes:

1, ww, Results are presented on a wet weight basis

NC, Not calculated; taxon was not present in sampling reach.

Units1


AnalyteConcentration

(+/- SE)

Concentration

(+/- SE)

Concentration

(+/- SE)

Taxon Not Present

Taxon Not Present Taxon Not PresentNot Calculated

Taxon Not Present

TABLE 16

SUMMARY OF SMALL MAMMAL TISSUE ANALYSES - ACTIVE PLANT AREA



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Number of

Samples

Number of

Detections

Minimum Detected

Concentration

Maximum Detected

Concentration

UCL95

Concentration2

Number of

Samples

Number of

Detections

Minimum

Detected

Concentration

Maximum

Detected

Concentration

UCL95

Concentration2

Metals

Antimony mg/kg dw 15 2 0.171 0.201 NC 7 1 0.060 0.06 NC

Arsenic mg/kg dw 15 11 0.12 5.94 1.741 7 4 0.10 0.28 0.184

Barium mg/kg dw 15 15 2.77 85.2 31.56 7 7 5.08 23.85 18.41

Cadmium mg/kg dw 15 6 0.13 1.62 0.497 7 1 0.02 0.02 NC

Chromium mg/kg dw 15 15 8.38 40.76 26.53 7 7 7.14 83.33 51.31

Cobalt mg/kg dw 15 15 0.14 3.42 1.413 7 7 0.13 0.63 0.421

Copper mg/kg dw 15 15 8.70 30.63 18.52 7 7 8.44 22.46 18.3

Lead mg/kg dw 15 15 0.21 47.2 14.49 7 7 0.53 4.2 2.699

Mercury mg/kg dw 15 3 0.05 0.12 0.12 7 5 0.06 0.43 0.245

Selenium mg/kg dw 15 15 1.65 259.4 219.2 7 7 1.49 5.9 4.02

Silver mg/kg dw 15 1 0.033 0.03 NC 7 0 ND ND NC

Zinc mg/kg dw 15 15 79.0 2185.0 1083 7 7 84.7 184.8 165.6

Other Parameters

Percent Moisture % 15 15 72.2 89.2 -- 7 7 69.2 88.1 --

Notes:

1, dw, Results are presented on a dry weight basis

2, UCL95, 95 percent upper confidence limit of the mean concentration; calculated in USEPA ProUCL 4.00.021, UCL95, 95 percent upper confidence limit of the mean concentration; calculated in USEPA ProUCL 4.00.02

NC, Not calculated; insufficient detected results to calcuate UCL95

Units1Analyte

Southern GridsNorthern Grids

TABLE 17

SUMMARY OF EARTHWORM TISSUE ANALYSES - ACTIVE PLANT AREA



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Number of

Samples

Number of

Detections

Minimum

Detected

Concentration

Maximum

Detected

Concentration

UCL95

Concentration2

Number of

Samples

Number of

Detections

Minimum

Detected

Concentration

Maximum

Detected

Concentration

UCL95

Concentration2

Metals

Antimony mg/kg dw 13 4 0.051 0.478 0.293 14 3 0.060 0.57 0.358

Arsenic mg/kg dw 13 13 1.29 12.59 8.525 14 14 3.55 9.87 7.413

Barium mg/kg dw 13 13 2.31 98.7 39.18 14 14 2.55 40.69 26.58

Cadmium mg/kg dw 13 13 2.24 64.71 33.19 14 14 3.94 23.81 12.41

Chromium mg/kg dw 13 11 0.98 13.91 5.554 14 10 0.97 10.29 6.243

Cobalt mg/kg dw 13 13 1.39 10.49 6.407 14 14 1.63 9.80 6.034

Copper mg/kg dw 13 13 5.20 51.23 25.08 14 14 6.21 95.88 62.93

Lead mg/kg dw 13 13 1.44 219.1 198.8 14 14 3.79 556.5 249.6

Mercury mg/kg dw 9 9 0.46 5.68 3.082 11 11 0.69 9.80 5.998

Selenium mg/kg dw 13 13 4.48 209.1 150.6 14 14 9.65 196.8 96.36

Silver mg/kg dw 13 12 0.019 1.68 0.839 14 9 0.014 1.16 0.956

Zinc mg/kg dw 13 13 122.9 654.3 455.4 14 14 170.5 768.7 455.9

Other Parameters

Percent Moisture % 13 13 50.0 87.0 NC 14 14 79.0 87.0 NC

Notes:



Northern Grids

Analyte

Southern Grids

Units1

TABLE 18

SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYSES - ACTIVE PLANT AREA



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Number of

Samples

Number of

Detections

Minimum Detected

Concentration

Maximum Detected

Concentration

UCL95

Concentration2

Number of

Samples

Number of

Detections

Minimum

Detected

Concentration

Maximum

Detected

Concentration

UCL95

Concentration2

Metals

Antimony mg/kg dw 15 15 0.220 0.750 0.423 15 15 0.170 0.51 0.324

Arsenic mg/kg dw 15 15 5.30 13.30 8.926 15 15 4.30 9.80 7.027

Barium mg/kg dw 15 15 55.20 558.0 257.7 15 15 47.30 115.00 82.34

Cadmium mg/kg dw 15 15 0.14 0.80 0.462 15 15 0.13 0.36 0.229

Chromium mg/kg dw 15 15 16.20 25.70 21.29 15 15 12.30 25.80 17.32

Cobalt mg/kg dw 15 15 8.20 16.90 12.81 15 15 6.80 22.80 12.98

Copper mg/kg dw 15 15 19.10 172.00 81.79 15 15 13.00 282.00 147.7

Lead mg/kg dw 15 15 22.20 676.0 272.7 15 15 21.10 563.0 230.5

Mercury mg/kg dw 15 15 0.06 1.40 0.453 15 15 0.08 4.40 1.542

Selenium mg/kg dw 15 15 0.78 179.0 133.6 15 15 0.87 6.2 2.036

Silver mg/kg dw 15 15 0.034 0.16 0.1 15 15 0.036 0.08 0.0603

Zinc mg/kg dw 15 15 64.1 92.1 81.51 15 15 42.8 227.0 87.93

Notes:



Analyte Units1

Northern Grids Southern Grids

TABLE 19

SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYSES - SWMU 35 PERIMETER



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Criteria Source

Metals

Antimony mg/kg 5 5 0.16 0.31 0.27 Min USEPA Eco-SSL 0.31J

0.23J

0.16J

0.22J

0.16J

Arsenic mg/kg 5 5 4.50 7.10 13 NYSDEC 375-6 5.60J

7.10J

5.20J

6.40J

4.50J

Barium mg/kg 5 5 49.30 286.00 433 NYSDEC 375-7 73.90 89.40 49.30 286.00 87.20

Cadmium mg/kg 5 5 0.10 11.80 4 NYSDEC 375-8 11.80 0.26 0.10 0.46 0.14

Chromium mg/kg 5 5 16.60 21.70 41 NYSDEC 375-9 16.60J'

16.70J'

18.30J'

21.70J'

17.00J'

Cobalt mg/kg 5 5 8.90 17.10 13 Min USEPA Eco-SSL 10.10 10.30 10.60 17.10 8.90

Copper mg/kg 5 5 11.80 40.70 50 NYSDEC 375-9 40.70J

22.90J

14.60J

17.80J

11.80J

Lead mg/kg 5 5 17.80 41.20 63.00 NYSDEC 375-10 41.20 21.80 17.80J

31.50 22.80J'

Mercury mg/kg 5 5 0.03 0.14 0.18 NYSDEC 375-11 0.09 0.09 0.03 0.14 0.13

Selenium mg/kg 5 5 0.34 0.96 3.9 NYSDEC 375-12 0.76 0.53 0.34 0.96 0.55

Silver mg/kg 5 5 0.02 0.15 2 NYSDEC 375-13 0.07J'

0.07 0.02B'

0.15 0.06B'

Zinc mg/kg 5 5 52.10 72.70 109 NYSDEC 375-14 62.90 61.70 52.60 72.70 52.10

Other Soil Parameters

Percent Solids % 5 5 73.50 80.70 -- -- 75.10 80.70 75.90 78.30 73.50

Notes:

If the result is > the reporting limit (RL), then [x] is non-detect at the sample concentration; if the result is < the RL, then [x] is non-detect at the RL.J Result is estimated due to a minor quality control anomaly



J 'Method blank contamination

PE-35-SO-04 PE-35-SO-05

Maximum

Detected

Concentration

Soil Screening Criteria

PE-35-SO-01 PE-35-SO-02 PE-35-SO-03Analyte UnitsNumber of

Samples

Number of

Detections

Minimum

Detected

Concentration

TABLE 20

RELATIVE WEIGHT OF SEDIMENT QUALITY LINES OF EVIDENCE



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

SQT Line of Evidence Relevance to Site-Specific Toxicity Relative Weight

Benthic Invertebrate Community Analysis

High: Community assessment provides an in situ evaluation of sediment toxicity based on

benthic invertebrates that have integrated the effects of stressors and the population

compensatory mechanisms evolved over time to survive in a highly variable and stressful

environment

+++

Sediment Toxicity Testing:

28-day Chironomus riparius Test

42-day Hyalella azteca Test

Bulk Sediment Chemistry Comparisons to Screening

Criteria

Low: Sediment screening values are based on the co-occurrence of benthic invertebrates

and sediment contaminant concentrations. +

Moderate: Sediment toxicity testing represents an ex situ evaluation of sediment toxicity. ++

TABLE 21

WEIGHT-OF-EVIDENCE FRAMEWORK TO CLASSIFY BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE COMMUNITY IMPACTS - SWMU 1/22 WETLAND COMPLEX



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Non Toxic Low Toxicity Moderate Toxicity High Toxicity

Reference Unaffected Unaffected Unaffected Low Effect

Low Disturbance Unaffected Low Effect Low Effect Low Effect

Moderate Disturbance Moderate Effect Moderate Effect Moderate Effect Moderate Effect

High Disturbance Moderate Effect High Effect High Effect High Effect

Non Toxic Low Toxicity Moderate Toxicity High Toxicity Unaffected Low Effect Moderate Effect High Effect

Minimal Exposure Minimal Potential Minimal Potential Low Potential Moderate Potential Minimal Potential Unimpacted Likely Unimpacted Likely Unimpacted Inconclusive

Low Exposure Minimal Potential Low Potential Moderate Potential Moderate Potential Low Potential Unimpacted Likely Unimpacted Possibly Impacted Possibly Impacted

Moderate Exposure Low Potential Moderate Potential Moderate Potential Moderate Potential Moderate Potential Likely UnimpactedPossibly Impacted or

InconclusiveLikely Impacted Likely Impacted

High Exposure Moderate Potential Moderate Potential High Potential High Potential High Potential Inconclusive Likely Impacted Clearly Impacted Clearly Impacted

Sediment Toxicity LOE Category Severity of Effect Classification

Sed

imen

t C

hem

istr

y

Pote

ntial

for C

hem

ical

ly-M

edia

ted E

ffec

ts

Table 20 A: Severity of Effect Classifications

Sediment Toxicity LOE Category

Ben

thic

Com

munity

Anal

ysis

Table 20 B: Potential That Effects Are Chemically-Mediated Table 20 C: Multiple Lines of Evidence Station Classifications

~

TABLE 22

SUMMARY OF SEVERE EFFECT LEVEL QUOTIENTS FOR TARGET METALS - SQT STATIONS



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

LEL1

SEL2 PE-SQT-01 PE-SQT-02 PE-SQT-03 PE-SQT-04 PE-SQT-05 PE-SQT-06 PE-SQT-07 PE-SQT-08 PE-SQT-09 PE-SQT-10 PE-SQT-11

Metals

Cadmium 0.6 9.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.2 3.0 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1

Copper 16 110 6.4 4.8 114.5 73.4 16.3 170.9 39.9 20.9 0.6 0.6 0.3

Lead 31 110 2.3 5.4 16.8 3.2 18.7 4.3 2.0 1.2 0.5 0.5 0.3

Mercury 0.15 1.3 44.2 6.4 47.0 21.4 2.7 63.4 9.4 19.1 0.2 0.2 0.1

Selenium3 5.00 -- 7.1 14.2 39.6 7.7 34.0 15.6 6.6 3.3 1.7 2.2 1.0

Zinc 120 270 0.6 0.6 0.1 4.7 0.9 7.8 2.3 1.5 0.3 0.3 0.3

Mean SEL-Quotient (SEL-Qmean) 10.1 5.2 36.3 18.5 12.1 44.2 10.2 7.7 0.7 0.8 0.4

Notes:



3, For selenium, the magnitude of exceedances (SEL-Q) was represented as the quotient of the measured concentration to the SQG developed for British Columbia by Nagpal (1995).

Shaded cells indicate SEL-Q values greater than 1.0

NYSDEC Sediment CriteriaSevere Effect Level Quotients (SEL-Q)

SWMU 1/22 SQT Stations Reference SQT StationsAnalyte

TABLE 23

BENTHIC COMMUNITY METRIC CALCULATIONS - SQT STATIONS



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C

Taxa Richness 23 22 16 15 20 23 5 6 5 7 4 10 8 5 5 7 12 4 9 13 9 19 21 20 12 12 9 12 4 10 18 12 10

Non-Chironomidae and Oligochaeta (NCO) Richness 13 11 9 9 9 11 4 5 3 3 0 4 6 4 4 3 4 2 6 6 4 8 9 7 7 6 5 11 3 9 11 7 6

Percent Dominance 22.0 25.5 34.8 41.7 30.5 44.0 91.3 75.8 89.0 72.1 79.1 48.8 63.2 80.0 64.0 52.9 30.2 50.0 83.2 66.3 76.2 28.4 40.0 23.8 27.5 28.9 35.1 37.9 47.4 36.4 34.9 37.9 48.8

Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index (H) 3.62 3.49 3.27 2.97 3.34 3.16 0.59 1.35 0.70 1.48 0.83 2.47 1.56 1.03 1.17 1.78 2.86 1.68 1.09 1.89 1.24 2.97 3.05 3.26 2.88 3.12 2.60 2.87 1.48 2.88 2.94 2.94 2.51

Hilsenhoff Biotic Index 7.44 6.95 7.36 7.12 7.45 7.01 9.78 9.09 9.56 8.72 9.80 8.54 6.51 6.12 6.68 6.76 7.73 7.34 6.01 5.76 5.75 7.01 6.77 6.61 7.96 8.08 7.76 7.29 6.98 7.00 7.30 6.89 7.20

Percent Model Affinity 66.0 63.6 67.1 60.4 49.7 50.0 28.7 41.5 30.2 45.6 40.0 57.5 42.8 30.0 33.6 42.8 59.7 51.9 25.3 34.8 23.6 40.2 53.1 40.9 72.5 63.9 58.1 45.3 35.3 66.4 52.6 60.3 61.3

Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT) Taxa Richness 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

A B,C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C

Taxa Richness 6 3 17 2 17 0 0 0 3 8 8 7 2 8 0 1 2 9 8 10 7 3 4 6 2 7 5 8 1 7 1 0

Non-Chironomidae and Oligochaeta (NCO) Richness 6 3 9 2 11 0 0 0 2 2 5 5 2 6 0 1 0 6 6 6 7 3 3 3 2 5 5 7 1 7 1 0

Percent Dominance 28.6 75.0 29.6 77.8 56.2 NA NA NA 60.0 34.8 36.4 38.2 50.0 72.9 NA 100.0 75.0 61.7 63.2 63.4 31.3 33.3 40.0 33.3 50.0 14.3 42.9 25.0 100.0 44.0 100.0 NA

Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index (H) 2.52 1.04 3.34 0.76 2.43 NA NA NA 1.37 2.42 2.28 2.07 1.00 1.33 NA 0.00 0.81 1.85 1.98 1.95 2.52 1.58 1.92 2.42 1.00 2.81 2.13 3.12 0.00 1.98 0.00 NA

Hilsenhoff Biotic Index 7.00 7.90 6.40 5.78 6.28 NA NA NA 7.40 7.48 6.76 6.82 7.35 6.47 NA 8.00 9.33 5.50 6.06 5.79 6.69 5.67 8.93 6.02 6.50 7.20 6.17 7.56 6.00 6.17 6.00 NA

Percent Model Affinity 45.0 30.0 66.0 35.0 53.1 NA NA NA 40.0 53.0 44.5 46.4 25.0 39.4 NA 20.0 20.0 34.1 46.1 37.0 35.0 35.0 55.0 63.3 30.0 77.9 49.3 55.0 20.0 47.0 20.0 NA

Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT) Taxa Richness 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

Fall 2010

Benthic Commuinty Metrics

June 2010

Benthic Commuinty Metrics

SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex Reference Wetland

SQT-06 SQT-07 SQT-08 SQT-09 SQT-10 SQT-11

SQT-07 SQT-08 SQT-09 SQT-10 SQT-11

SQT-01

SQT-06


SQT-02 SQT-03 SQT-04 SQT-05


TABLE 24

SUMMARY OF BENTHIC COMMUNITY METRIC STATISTICAL COMPARISONS - SQT STATIONS



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

June October June October June October June October 1-Jun October June October

PE_SQT_01 0.132 1 0.124 1 0.421 1 0.282 1 1 0.647 0.873 0.997

PE_SQT_02 0.204 0.119 0.612 0.119 1 1 0.842 0.992 1 0.998 0.999 0.998

PE_SQT_03 0.131 NA 0.271 NA 0 NA 0 NA 0 NA 0.009 NA

PE_SQT_04 0.55 0.997 0.019 0.997 0.008 1 0.036 0.999 0 0.733 0.754 1

PE_SQT_05 0.278 1 0.558 1 0.003 1 0.003 1 0.206 0.977 0.02 0.989

PE_SQT_06 0.715 0.956 0.061 0.956 0.952 0.555 0.625 0.679 1 0.034 0.98 0.43

PE_SQT_07 1 0.661 0.855 0.661 0.001 0.995 0.009 1 0 0.795 0.001 0.998

PE_SQT_08 0.138 1 0.999 1 0.87 0.968 0.922 0.999 0.969 0.938 0.44 1

ANOVA p-value 0 -- 0 0.181 0 0.47 -- 0.599 0 0.012 0 0.491

Kruskal- Wallis p-value -- 0.14 -- -- -- -- 0.001 -- -- -- -- --Transformation Type Log NON NON NON Log NON NON NON Log Log NON NON

Notes:

Shaded cells indicate signficant differences in SWMU 1/22 SQT stations relative to pooled reference SQT stations that are indicative of benthic invertebrate community impairment.

Statistical analyses were not conducted on Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT) richness due to the low occurrence of these taxa at SQT stations (See Table 23).

1, Significant differences were observed in HBI values for summer reference locations; statistical comparisons to SWMU 1/22 were based on comparisons to data from SQT-10, which had the lowest

(most conservative) values of HBI.

NA, Metrics were not calculated for SQT-03 because no organisms were present in the samples.

--, Statistical procedure not performed.

SQT Station

Probability (p) Values for Pairwise Comparisons with Pooled1 Reference Samples

Hilsenhoff Biotic Index Percent Model AffinityTaxa Richness NCO Richness Percent Dominant TaxonShannon-Weiner Diversity

Index (H)

TABLE 25

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT PROFILE - SQT STATIONS



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

Taxa Richness 7.09 1.17 6.55 1.21 0 0 0.48 0.48 0 0 0.98 0.98 1.61 0.90 6.82 0.26 2.21 0.75 1.46 0.85 3.43 1.32

Non-Chironomidae and Oligochaeta (NCO) Richness 7.94 0.63 7.21 0.39 4.17 0.32 2.59 1.31 4.60 0.43 3.61 0.32 5.03 0.43 6.36 0.26 5.36 0.35 6.14 1.31 6.45 0.78

Hilsenhoff Biotic Index 4.58 0.25 4.68 0.22 0.87 0.34 1.64 0.66 5.94 0.28 4.54 0.47 6.93 0.14 5.34 0.19 3.45 0.16 4.85 0.17 4.78 0.21

EPT Taxa Richness 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.0 0.5 2.83 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0

Index 5.15 0.42 4.73 0.53 1.26 0.15 1.18 0.57 2.63 0.11 2.28 0.25 3.64 0.40 5.34 0.22 2.75 0.24 3.11 0.50 3.67 0.50

Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

Taxa Richness 0 0 3.64 1.82 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.71 0.41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Non-Chironomidae and Oligochaeta (NCO) Richness 4.53 0.75 5.96 1.49 0 0 3.61 0.56 4.41 0.71 0.33 0.33 5.45 0.00 4.38 0.77 3.80 0.49 3.88 1.48 2.30 1.83

Hilsenhoff Biotic Index 4.25 0.61 6.41 0.32 -- -- 4.64 0.38 5.20 0.43 2.23 0.90 7.03 0.27 4.84 1.61 5.71 0.57 5.71 0.82 6.53 0.11

EPT Taxa Richness 0.75 0.61 2.17 0.67 0 0 1.17 1.17 0.50 0.50 0 0 2.83 0.67 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0 0

Index 2.38 0.49 4.54 0.86 0 0 2.35 0.53 2.53 0.39 0.45 0.32 4.01 0.31 2.43 0.56 2.50 0.15 2.52 0.36 1.66 0.90

Notes:

--, Value not calculated for SQT-03 because no organisms were present in the samples.

SQT-11SQT-04 SQT-05 SQT-06 SQT-07 SQT-08 SQT-09


Fall 2010

Biological Assessment Profile



June 2010

Biological Assessment Profile



SQT-10


I I I I I I I I I I I

========= I = I l= I = I_ I = I = I_ I = I = I l= I 1- 1- 1- 1-==1- 1- 1-==1- 1- 1- 1---i---i---1- I- 1---1- I- I ___ I ___ I ___ I_

I I I I I I I I I I I

TABLE 26

DESIGNATION OF RESPONSE CATEGORIES - SQT WEIGHT-OF-EVIDENCE EVALUATION OF SEDIMENT IMPACTS



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Chironomus riparius Hyalella aztecaC

d

Cu

Pb

Hg

Se

Zn

Mea

n

SEL-Q

TR

NC

O

PD

HB

I

SW

D

PM

A

June

Oct

ober

Day 10

Relative Survival

Day 42

Relative Survival

PE-SQT-01 0.1 6.4 2.3 44.2 7.1 0.6 10.1 Moderate Exposure – – – – – – 1.6 1.1 Reference 82.6% 51.7% Moderate Toxicity

PE-SQT-02 0.1 4.8 5.4 6.4 14.2 0.6 5.2 Moderate Exposure – – – – – – 1.5 2.0 Reference 79.8% 85.0% Non Toxic

PE-SQT-03 0.0 114.5 16.8 47.0 39.6 0.1 36.3 High Exposure + + + + + + 0.4 0.0 High Disturbance 0.0% 0.0% High Toxicity

PE-SQT-04 0.3 73.4 3.2 21.4 7.7 4.7 18.5 High Exposure – + + + + – 0.4 1.1 Moderate Disturbance 107.3% 30.0% Moderate Toxicity

PE-SQT-05 0.2 16.3 18.7 2.7 34.0 0.9 12.1 Moderate Exposure – – + + – + 0.8 1.1 Moderate Disturbance 66.1% 11.7% High Toxicity

PE-SQT-06 3.0 170.9 4.3 63.4 15.6 7.8 44.2 High Exposure – – – – + – 0.7 0.2 Moderate Disturbance 107.3% 38.3% Moderate Toxicity

PE-SQT-07 0.9 39.9 2.0 9.4 6.6 2.3 10.2 Moderate Exposure – – + + – + 1.1 1.8 Low Disturbance 104.6% 88.3% Non Toxic

PE-SQT-08 0.4 20.9 1.2 19.1 3.3 1.5 7.7 Moderate Exposure – – – – – – 1.7 1.1 Reference 90.8% 91.7% Non Toxic

Toxicity CategoryStatistical Significance from

Reference

Benthic Community Analyses

BAP - Index

QuotientsStation ID

Sediment Chemistry

SEL Quotients (SEL-Q)

Toxicity Testing

Percent Survival

Relative to Mean Reference Survival

Sediment Chemistry

Exposure Category

Benthic Community

Disturbance Category

TABLE 27

BENTHIC COMMUNITY IMPACT CLASSIFICATIONS BASED ON SQT WEIGHT-OF-EVIDENCE EVALUATION - SWMU 1/22 WETLAND COMPLEX



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Non Toxic Low Toxicity Moderate Toxicity High Toxicity

ReferenceUnaffected

SQT-08, SQT-02Unaffected

SQT-01

Low DisturbanceUnaffected

SQT-07

Moderate DisturbanceModerate Effect

SQT-04, SQT-06Moderate Effect

SQT-05

High DisturbanceHigh Effect

SQT-03

Non Toxic Low Toxicity Moderate Toxicity High Toxicity Unaffected Low Effect Moderate Effect High Effect

Minimal Exposure Minimal Potential

Low Exposure Low Potential

Unimpacted

SQT-02, SQT-07

SQT-08

Moderate Exposure

Low Potential

SQT-02, SQT-07

SQT-08

Moderate Potential

SQT-01Moderate Potential

SQT-05Moderate Potential

Likely Unimpacted

SQT-01Likely Impacted

SQT-05

High ExposureHigh Potential

SQT-04, SQT-06High Potential

SQT-03High Potential

Clearly Impacted

SQT-04, SQT-06Clearly Impacted

SQT-03

Severity of Effect Classification

Sed

imen

t C

hem

istr

y


Pote

ntial

for

Chem

ical

ly-M

edia

ted E

ffec

ts

Table 26 A: Severity of Effect Classifications

Table 26 B: Potential That Effects Are Chemically-Mediated Table 26 C: Multiple Lines of Evidence Station Classifications

Ben

thic

Com

munity

Anal

ysis


~

TABLE 28

SUMMARY OF SEMI-AQUATIC WILDLIFE EXPOSURE - SWMU 1/22 WETLAND COMPLEX



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Cad

miu

m

Copper

Lea

d

Mer

cury

Met

hyl

mer

cury

Sel

eniu

m

Zin

c

Maximum Area Use Exposure Scenario

Great blue heron <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 1.1 / <1 1 / <1 <1 / <1

Belted kingfisher <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 3 / <1 2.3 / 1.1 <1 / <1

Mallard <1 / <1 2.4 / 1.3 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 2.5 / 1.3 <1 / <1

Tree swallow <1 / <1 5.7 / 3.2 <1 / <1 1.3 / <1 4.4 / 1.5 10.5 / 5.3 <1 / <1

Indiana bat <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 1.9 / <1 7.6 / 4.6 <1 / <1

Mink <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 1.4 / <1 <1 / <1

Raccoon <1 / <1 1.2 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 3.2 / 2 <1 / <1

Area Use Adjusted Exposure Scenario

Great blue heron <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1

Belted kingfisher <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 3 / <1 2.3 / 1.1 <1 / <1

Mallard <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1

Tree swallow <1 / <1 5.7 / 3.2 <1 / <1 1.3 / <1 4.4 / 1.5 10.5 / 5.3 <1 / <1

Indiana bat <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1

Mink <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 1.4 / <1 <1 / <1

Raccoon <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1

Common

Name

HQNOAEL / HQLOAEL

TABLE 29

SUMMARY OF TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE EXPOSURE - NORTHERN PLANT GRIDS



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Antim

ony

Ars

enic

Bar

ium

Cad

miu

m

Chro

miu

m

Cobal

t

Copper

Lea

d

Mer

cury

Sel

eniu

m

Silv

er

Zin

c


American robin NA / NA <1 / <1 <1 / <1 1.8 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 3 / <1 <1 / <1 46.8 / 23.4 <1 / <1 <1 / <1

Red-tailed hawk NA / NA <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 42.4 / 21.2 <1 / <1 1.5 / <1

Short-tailed shrew <1 / NA <1 / <1 <1 / <1 2.8 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 103.6 / 62.8 <1 / <1 <1 / <1

Red fox <1 / NA <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 34.5 / 20.9 <1 / <1 <1 / <1

Common

Name

HQNOAEL / HQLOAEL

TABLE 30

SUMMARY OF TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE EXPOSURE - SOUTHERN PLANT GRIDS



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Antim

ony

Ars

enic

Bar

ium

Cad

miu

m

Chro

miu

m

Cobal

t

Copper

Lea

d

Mer

cury

Sel

eniu

m

Silv

er

Zin

c


American robin NA / NA <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 3.7 / <1 <1 / <1 14.5 / 7.2 <1 / <1 <1 / <1

Red-tailed hawk NA / NA <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1

Short-tailed shrew <1 / NA <1 / <1 <1 / <1 1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 1.1 / <1 <1 / <1 64.6 / 39.2 <1 / <1 <1 / <1

Red fox <1 / NA <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1

Common

Name

HQNOAEL / HQLOAEL

TABLE 31

SUMMARY OF TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE EXPOSURE - NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN PLANT GRIDS



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Antim

ony

Ars

enic

Bar

ium

Cad

miu

m

Chro

miu

m

Cobal

t

Copper

Lea

d

Mer

cury

Sel

eniu

m

Silv

er

Zin

c


Red-tailed hawk NA / NA <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 16 / 8 <1 / <1 1.1 / <1

Red fox <1 / NA <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 12.7 / 7.7 <1 / <1 <1 / <1

Area Use Adjusted Exposure Scenario

Red-tailed hawk NA / NA <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 2.9 / 1.4 <1 / <1 <1 / <1

Red fox <1 / NA <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 <1 / <1 7.3 / 4.5 <1 / <1 <1 / <1

Common

Name


HQNOAEL / HQLOAEL

FIGURES

Fort Washington, PA

0 2,000 4,0001,000Feet

Map Source:USGS topographic maps: Kingston West (2000), Kingston East (1980),Rosendale (1980), Hyde Park (2000) Boundaries: Site and property boundaries approximations were determined using available data from historical maps and CAD files.

qLegendAPPROXIMATE PROPERTY BOUNDARY

FIGURE 1SITE LOCATION MAP

Q:\G

IS_Da

ta\HE

RCUL

ES\Pr

ojects

\Figu

re 1 T

opo.m

xd

FWIA STEP IIC INVESTIGATIONDYNO NOBEL PORT EWEN SITE

PORT EWEN, NEW YORKCl

I " [S<lPUt:het~°':~ ~

URS

FIGURE 2

ECOLOGICAL CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Inver

tivoro

us

Mam

mal

(e.g

., S

hort

-tai

led s

hre

w)

Inver

tivoro

us

Bir

d

(e.g

., A

mer

ican

robin

)

Car

niv

oro

us

Mam

mal

(e.g

., r

ed f

ox)

Car

niv

oro

us

Bir

d

(e.g

., r

ed-t

aile

d h

awk)

Em

ergen

t V

eget

atio

n

Ben

thic

Mac

roin

ver

tebra

tes

Fis

h/A

mphib

ians

Om

niv

oro

us

Mam

mal

(e.g

., r

acco

on)

Aer

ial

Inse

ctiv

oro

us

Mam

mal

(e.g

., I

ndia

na

bat

)

Pis

civoro

us

Mam

mal

(e.g

., m

ink)

Inver

tivoro

us

Bir

d

(e.g

., m

alla

rd)

Aer

ial

Inse

ctiv

oro

us

Bir

d

(e.g

., t

ree

swal

low

)

Sem

i-A

quat

ic I

nse

ctiv

oro

us

Bir

d

(e.g

., K

entu

cky W

arble

r)

Pis

civoro

us

Bir

d

(e.g

., g

reat

blu

e her

on)

Direct Contact/Absorption

Direct Ingestion � � � �

Incidental Ingestion � � � �

Direct Contact/Absorption � � �

Direct Ingestion � � � � � � � � �

Incidental Ingestion

Direct Ingestion � � � � � � � � �

Direct Contact/Absorption � � � -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Direct Ingestion

Incidental Ingestion � -- -- � -- � �

Notes:

CONTAMINANT MIGRATION PATHWAY

LIMITED OR INSIGNIFICANT CONTAMINANT MIGRATION PATHWAY

� PRIMARY EXPOSURE PATHWAY: EVALUATED QUANTITATIVELY

� SECONDARY EXPOSURE PATHWAY: EVALUATED QUALITATIVELY

-- EXPOSURE PATHWAY IS INSIGNIFICANT

BLANK = INCOMPLETE EXPOSURE PATHWAY

SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex

Potential Exposure

Routes Migration Pathways and Exposure Media Areas of Concern Potential Ecological Receptors

Terrestrial

Active Plant Area

Wetland

Sediment

Surface Water

Aquatic Biota

SWMU 1/22

Shooting Pond and

Associated Wetlands

Bioaccumulation

Bioaccumulation

Terrestrial

Biota

(plants, earthworms, small

mammals)

Runoff

Bioaccumulation

Resuspension

Deposition

Active Plant Area

SWMUs

Leaching

Runoff

Discharge

Groundwater

Surficial SoilSurface migration

Page 1 of 1

ou

D II

-··+

II 1

' ' +

HI l

l 11

I

II

II

II

-

.....--

I

I -1

l I I I I I I

II

l I

I

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

�-

�-

�-

�-

�-

�-

�-

�-

�-

�-

�-

�-

�-

�-

SWMU 22

SWMU 1

PE-SW-05

PE-SW-04

PE-SW-03

PE-SW-01

PE-SQT-08

PE-SW-06

PE-SW-02SQT-03

PE-SQT-06

PE-SQT-07

PE-SQT-05

PE-SQT-04

PE-SQT-02

PE-SQT-01

Fort Washington, PA

0 110 220 330 44055

Feet

Map Source:Image: NYSGIS (2004)Boundaries: Site and property boundaries approximations were determined using available data from historical maps and CAD files.q

Legend

�- SURFACE WATER SAMPLING STATION

�- SQT SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION

FISH SAMPLING REACH

APPROXIMATE SWMU/AOCBOUNDARY

PERENNIAL STREAM

INTERMITTENT STERAM

CONNECTOR

! ! ARTIFICIAL PATH

FIGURE 3SEDIMENT QUALITY TRIAD, SURFACE WATER, AND FISH SAMPLING LOCATIONS – SWMU 1/22 WETLAND COMPLEX

Q:\G

IS_

Data

\HE

RC

UL

ES

\Pro

jects

\Fig

ure

3 S

urf

ace

Wa

ter

and

Fis

h S

am

plin

g L

ocs.m

xd


PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Downstream Reach

Site Reach

Upstream Reach

g D

�-

�-

�-

�-

�-

�-

Floyd Ackert Rd

584854

584854

585006

585006

585158

585158

585311

585311

585463

585463

46

28

80

446

28

95

646

29

10

846

29

26

1

Legend

�- SURFACE WATER SAMPLING STATION

�- SQT SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION

SCENIC HUDSON GORDONPROPERTY BOUNDARY

Key Map

±NAD 1983 UTM Zone 18NProjection: Transverse MercatorFalse Easting: 500000.000000False Northing: 0.000000Central Meridian: -75.000000Scale Factor: 0.999600Latitude Of Origin: 0.000000Linear Unit: Meter

0 200 400100

Feet

Prepared By: RRM III

Job:19998508/9.00002

Checked By: GL

Q:\GIS_Data\HERCULES\Projects\PortEwen\March_2011\Figure 4 Gordon Reference Sampling Area.mxd


PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

1 inch = 200 feet

Date: 03/21/2011

FIGURE 4SEDIMENT QUALITY TRIAD

AND SURFACE WATERSAMPLING STATIONS-

REFERENCE WETLANDS

0 63

Miles

Hud

son River

Site PropertyBoundary

Scenic Hudson Gordon Property Boundary

Note: All concentrations are represented as mg/kgBold sediment concentrations indicate an exceedance of the LEL; shaded concentrations indicate an exceedance of the SEL.

Key Map Scale

Main Map Scale

Analyte Unit Result

Cadmium MG/KG 1.1

Copper MG/KG 37.2

Lead MG/KG 36.2

Mercury MG/KG 0.19

Selenium MG/KG 5.2

Zinc MG/KG 68.3

TOC PERCENT 11.8

Toxicity Test Endpoint Significant

Chironomus riparius 10-d Survival No

10-d Biomass/Emergence No

Hyalella azteca 42-d Survival No

42-d Biomass/Juveniles No

Benthic Community Metrics June October

Taxa richness (# taxa/sample) 13.3+/-2.4 2.7+/-2.2

NCO Richness (# taxa/sample) 8+/-1.5 2.7+/-2.2

Percent Dominance (Percent) 40.5+/-4.2 72+/-22.9

Shannon-Weiner Diversity 2.8+/-0.1 1+/-0.8

Hilsenhoff Biotic Index 7.1+/-0.1 6.1+/-0.1

Percent Model Affinity 58.1+/-2.7 33.5+/-11

PE-SQT-11

Analyte Unit Result

Cadmium MG/KG 2

Copper MG/KG 68.4

Lead MG/KG 56.7

Mercury MG/KG 0.32

Selenium MG/KG 11

Zinc MG/KG 81.3

TOC PERCENT 28.1







Taxa richness (# taxa/sample) 8.7+/-2.4 4.7+/-2

NCO Richness (# taxa/sample) 7.7+/-2.4 4.3+/-1.8

Percent Dominance (Percent) 40.6+/-3.4 56+/-22.6

Shannon-Weiner Diversity 2.4+/-0.5 1.8+/-0.9


Percent Model Affinity 49+/-9.2 41.4+/-10.8

PE-SQT-10

Analyte Unit Result

Cadmium MG/KG 2.3

Copper MG/KG 68

Lead MG/KG 58.1

Mercury MG/KG 0.29

Selenium MG/KG 8.4

Zinc MG/KG 85.9

TOC PERCENT 21.4







Taxa richness (# taxa/sample) 11+/-1 5+/-1.5


Percent Dominance (Percent) 30.5+/-2.3 32.5+/-10.3



Percent Model Affinity 64.9+/-4.2 57.1+/-14.2

PE-SQT-09

,-, r'- _J - .i_l

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

�-

�-

�-

�-

�-

�-

�-

�-

SWMU 22

SWMU 1

Fort Washington, PA

0 90 180 270 36045

Feet

Map Source:Image: NYSGIS (2004)Boundaries: Site and property boundaries approximations were determined using available data from historical maps and CAD files.

qLegend

!( SQT SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION

!( HISTORIC SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATION

APPROXIMATE SWMU/AOCBOUNDARY

SWMU 1/22 BOUNDARY

APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF REMEDIAL BOUNDARYPROPOSED IN 2006 CMS

FIGURE 5SEDIMENT QUALITY TRIAD SAMPLING LOCATIONS – SWMU 1/22 WETLAND COMPLEX

Q:\G

IS_

Data

\HE

RC

UL

ES

\Pro

jects

\Fig

ure

SW

MU

1 &

22

Co

mp

lex P

ostin

gs 0

223

11.m

xd

Note: All concentrations are represented as mg/kg. Bold sediment concentrations indicate an exceedanceof the LEL; shaded concentrations indicate an exceedance of the SEL; Shaded sediment toxicity testingand benthic community results indicate statistical significance relevant to reference stations.


PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Analyte Result SEL-Q

Cadmium (mg/kg) 3.3 0.4

Copper (mg/kg) 2300 20.9

Lead (mg/kg) 128 1.2

Mercury (mg/kg) 24.8 19.1

Selenium (mg/kg) 16.4 3.3

Zinc (mg/kg) 404 1.5

Mean SEL-Q: 7.7

TOC (%) 4.93 NA







Taxa richness (# taxa/sample) 20+/-0.6 4.7+/-1.2




Hilsenhoff Biotic Index 6.8+/-0.1 7.1+/-1


PE-SQT-08








Mean SEL-Q: 10.2

TOC (% ) 8.35 NA





42-d Biomass/Juveniles Yes


Taxa richness (# taxa/sample) 10.3+/-1.3 9+/-0.6

NCO Richness (# taxa/sample) 5.3+/-0.7 6+/-0


Shannon-Weiner Diversity 1.4+/-0.2 1.9+/-0



PE-SQT-07



Copper (mg/kg) 18800 170.9




Zinc (mg/kg) 2110 7.8

Mean SEL-Q: 44.2

TOC (%) 10.6 NA




Hyalella azteca 42-d Survival Yes



Taxa richness (# taxa/sample) 7.7+/-2.3 1+/-0.6





Percent Model Affinity 51.5+/-4.9 20+/-0

PE-SQT-06


Cadmium (mg/kg) 2 0.2


Lead (mg/kg) 2060 18.7


Selenium (mg/kg) 170 34.0


Mean SEL-Q: 12.1

TOC (% ) 6.52 NA



10-d Biomass/Emergence Yes




Taxa richness (# taxa/sample) 6+/-1 5.7+/-1.9






PE-SQT-05







Zinc (mg/kg) 1270 4.7

Mean SEL-Q: 18.5

TOC (%) 5.42 NA







Taxa richness (# taxa/sample) 7+/-1.7 6.3+/-1.7

NCO Richness (# taxa/sample) 2.3+/-1.2 3+/-1



Hilsenhoff Biotic Index 9+/-0.4 7.2+/-0.2


PE-SQT-04








Mean SEL-Q: 5.2

TOC (% ) 4.32 NA







Taxa richness (# taxa/sample) 19.3+/-2.3 12+/-5





Percent Model Affinity 53.4+/-3.5 51.4+/-9

PE-SQT-02



Copper (mg/kg) 12600 114.5

Lead (mg/kg) 1850 16.8



Zinc (mg/kg) 26.2 0.1

Mean SEL-Q: 36.3

TOC (% ) 5.57 NA


Chironomus riparius 10-d Survival Yes

10-d Biomass/Emergence Yes




Taxa richness (# taxa/sample) 5.3+/-0.3 0+/-0

NCO Richness (# taxa/sample) 4+/-0.6 0+/-0

Percent Dominance (Percent) 85.3+/-4.8 NA

Shannon-Weiner Diversity 0.9+/-0.2 NA

Hilsenhoff Biotic Index 9.5+/-0.2 NA

Percent Model Affinity 33.5+/-4 NA

PE-SQT-03








Mean SEL-Q: 10.1

TOC (%) 6.64 NA







Taxa richness (# taxa/sample) 20.3+/-2.2 4.5+/-1.2


Percent Dominance (Percent) 27.4+/-3.8 51.8+/-19



Percent Model Affinity 65.6+/-1 37.5+/-6.1

PE-SQT-01

--- -------- - -

�-

XW

XW

XW

XW

SWMU 26G

Fort Washington, PA

Map Source:Fresh water wetlands: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Surface water: National Hydrography DatasetCountours: United States Department of Agriculture/Natural Resource Conservation Service - National Cartography and Geospatial Center digital elevation modelsBoundaries: Site and property boundaries approximations were determined using available data from historical maps and CAD files.q

0 100 200 300 40050

Feet

Q:\G

IS_

Data

\HE

RC

UL

ES

\Pro

jects

\Fig

ure

6 A

ctive

Pla

nt A

rea S

am

ple

Po

sting

s.m

xd

Note:Bold sample results indicate exceedance of the Lowest Effect Level (LEL)Bold/shaded sample results indicate exceedance of the Severe Effect Level (SEL)

FIGURE 6DOWNSTREAM SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATIONS - SWMU 1/22 WETLAND COMPLEX


PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Legend

RAILROAD

PERENNIAL STREAM

INTERMITTENT STREAM

SWAMP/MARSH

NYSDEC MAPPED CLASS 2 WETLANDS


APPROXIMATE PROPERTY BOUNDARY�- SQT SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION

XW DOWNSTREAM SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION

Analyte Units 0.0'-1.0'

Cadmium MG/KG 1.7

Copper MG/KG 1,410

Lead MG/KG 52.3

Mercury MG/KG 25.4

Selenium MG/KG 5.1

Zinc MG/KG 226

TOC Percent 7.75

PE-DNS-SD-02


Cadmium MG/KG 0.45

Copper MG/KG 246

Lead MG/KG 25.9

Mercury MG/KG 3.4

Selenium MG/KG 1.3

Zinc MG/KG 89.3

TOC Percent 2.08

PE-DNS-SD-03


Cadmium MG/KG 0.78

Copper MG/KG 179

Lead MG/KG 40.6

Mercury MG/KG 1.1

Selenium MG/KG 2

Zinc MG/KG 185

TOC Percent 4.82

PE-DNS-SD-04

Analyte Units Result

Cadmium MG/KG 3.3

Copper MG/KG 2,300

Lead MG/KG 128

Mercury MG/KG 24.8

Selenium MG/KG 16.4

Zinc MG/KG 404

TOC Percent 4.93

PE-SQT-08

Analyte Units 0.0'-1.0' 1.0'-1.5'

Cadmium MG/KG 1.9 1

Copper MG/KG 2,020 2,440

Lead MG/KG 77.3 51.4

Mercury MG/KG 25.5 45.3

Selenium MG/KG 7.7 4.3

Zinc MG/KG 270 249

TOC Percent 7.14 4.25

PE-DNS-SD-01

' .. ) - -- -" lti •.. , ... ,... :~ ..

FIGURE 7

PERCENT ABUNDANCE OF BENTHIC TAXA IN MARKET BASKET TISSUE COMPOSITE SAMPLES



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

1%

PE-SQT-01 1%

~

PE-SQT-04

PE-SQT-06

~ 1%

84%

PE-SQT-08 3% 3%

PE-SQT-02

2% PE-SQT-05

~ 5%

PE-SQT-07 2% ~

REFERENCE

• Amphipoda 1%

• Chironomidae

• Culicidae

• Decapoda

• Elmid

• Ephemeroptera

• Hirundea

• lsopoda

• Odonata

Oligochaeta

Trichoptera

y = 0.0331x + 0.0003R² = 0.8828

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Invertebrate [Cd] (mg/kg wet weight)

Sediment [Cd] (mg/kg)

Cadmium

y = 0.0078x + 18.193R² = 0.8421

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0 5000 10000 15000 20000

Invertebrate [Cu] (mg/kg wet weight)

Sediment [Cu] (mg/kg)

Copper

y = 0.0032x + 0.1641R² = 0.8985

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Invertebrate [Pb] (mg/kg wet weight)

Sediment [Pb] (mg/kg)

Lead

SQT-05SQT-02SQT-02SQT-02SQT-02SQT-02

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000

Invertebrate [Hg] (ng/g wet weight)

Sediment [Hg] (ng/g)

Total Mercury

FIGURE 8

NON-DEPURATED BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE CONCENTRATIONS ALONG A GRADIENT OF SEDIMENT CONCENTRATIONS



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

y …010

0

In…

Sedim…

LeadReference

Site

y …010

0

In…

Sedim…

LeadReference

Site

SQT-04SQT-01

SQT-02

SQT-05

SQT-06

SQT-07

SQT-08

SQT-05

SQT-02

SQT-06

SQT-07SQT-08

SQT-01

SQT-04

SQT-05

SQT-02

SQT-06

SQT-07

SQT-08

SQT-01

SQT-04

SQT-05SQT-02 SQT-06

SQT-07

SQT-08

SQT-01SQT-04

D •

• • •

D

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000Inve

rteb

rate [MeH

g] (ng/g wet weight)

Sediment [Hg] (ng/g)

Methylmercury Invertebrate v. Total Mercury Sediment

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0 50 100 150 200

Inve

rteb

rate [Se] (mg/kg wet weight)

Sediment [Se] (mg/kg)

Selenium

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Inve

rteb

rate [Zn] (m

g/kg wet weight)

Sediment [Zn] (mg/kg)

Zinc

y …010

0

In…

Sedim…

LeadReference

Site

y …010

0

In…

Sedim…

LeadReference

Site

FIGURE 8 (continued)

NON-DEPURATED BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE CONCENTRATIONS ALONG A GRADIENT OF SEDIMENT CONCENTRATIONS


DYNO NOBEL PORT EWEN SITEPORT EWEN, NEW YORK

SQT-05

SQT-02

SQT-06

SQT-07

SQT-08

SQT-01

SQT-04

SQT-05

SQT-02

SQT-06

SQT-07

SQT-08SQT-01

SQT-04

SQT-05

SQT-02

SQT-06

SQT-07

SQT-08

SQT-01SQT-04

• •

• • • •• • • • •

,,

D • • • •

• •

D

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035


Fis

h [C

d] (m

g/k

g w

et w

eight)

Cadmium

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3


Fis

h [C

u] (m

g/k

g w

et w

eight)

Copper

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350


Fis

h [tH

g] (n

g/g

wet

wei

ght)

Total Mercury

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.2


Fis

h [Pb] (m

g/k

g w

et w

eight)

Lead

FIGURE 9

FISH TISSUE CONCENTRATIONS BY REACH



0

0.05

UpstreamSiteDownstreamFis

… CadmiumForage - Golden Shiner

Piscivore - American Eel

Piscivore - Largemouth Bass

0

0.05

UpstreamSiteDownstream

Fis




-t •

' •

1: I 7

-

•

~-----,----------,---~==--1 1: .

'


FISH TISSUE CONCENTRATIONS BY REACH



0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5


Fis

h [Se]

(m

g/k

g w

et w

eight)

Selenium

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


Fis

h [Zn] (m

g/k

g w

et w

eight)

Zinc

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350


Fis

h [M

eHg] (n

g/g

wet

wei

ght)

Methyl Mercury

0

0.05

UpstreamSiteDownstreamFis




0

0.05

UpstreamSiteDownstream

Fis




' • ' '

1:

-

-· 1: L_______JI

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(!(!(!(

!(

!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!( !(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�î

�î

�î

�î

�î

�î

�î

�î

�î

�î

�î

�î

�î

�î

�î�î

�î

�î�î

�î

�î

�î

�î�î�î

�î

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#* #*#*

#*#*

#*

#* #*#*

#*

SWMU 26E

SWMU 11

SWMU 33

SWMU 6/7

AOC J

SWMU 46

SWMU 4

SWMU 9

AOC I

AOC M

AOC O

AOC N

AOC H

AOC G

SWMU 40

SWMU 27

SWMU 26D

SWMU 3/5

SWMU 10

SWMU 2

AOC A

SWMU 47

SWMU 42

SWMU 48

SWMU 21

SWMU 35

SWMU 26G

SWMU 52

AOC B

SWMU 1

SWMU 23

SWMU 32

SWMU 39

SWMU 29

SWMU 13

SWMU 54

SWMU 22

SWMU 8AOC C&D

Fort Washington, PA


FIGURE 10ACTIVE PLANT AREA SAMPLING LOCATIONSLegend

�� Microtus pennsylvanicus

�� Peromyscus leucopus

�� Zapus hudsonius

#* ACTIVE PLANT SOIL

�î EARTHWORM

!( SMALL MAMMAL TRANSECT END POINTS

SMALL MAMMAL TRANSECTS

BIOLOGICAL TISSUE ANDSOIL SAMPLING GRID

RAILROAD

APPROXIMATE PROPERTY BOUNDARY

APPROXIMATE SWMU/AOC BOUNDARY

SWMU 1/22 BOUNDARY

0 200 400 600 800100

Feet

Q:\G

IS_

Data

\HE

RC

UL

ES

\Pro

jects

\Fig

ure

10

Pro

posed

Active

Pla

nt A

rea

Sa

mp

ling

Lo

ca

tio

ns.m

xd


PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

��

��

��

�î

�î

�î

#*

#*

#*

NF 2

N2 B

N2 E

N2 C

N2 A

N2 D

N2 G

N=20

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(!(!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

��

��

��

��

��

�î

�î

�î

�î

�î

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

N3 A

N3 C

N3 DN

3 E

N3 I

N3 G

N3 J

N3 F

N3 H

N3 C

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

��

��

��

�î

�î

�î

�î

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

N1 B

N1 A

N1 C

N1 D

N=30

N1

E

N1 C

NF 1

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

��î

�î

�î�î

�î

#*

#*

#*#*#*

S1 B

S1 A

S1 C

S1

E

S1 G

S1

D

S1 F

S1 F

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

��

�î

�î�î

�î

�î

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

S3 A

S3 F

S3 B

S3 E

S3 C

SE D

S3 G

S3 H

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

��

�î�î

�î

�î

#*

#*

#* #*#*

#*

#*

S2 A

S2 E

S2 B

S2 D

S2 H

S2 F

S2 G

N=19

S2 C

N2

N3

N1

S3

S2

S1

SWMU 26G

AOC C&D

AOC B

SWMU 8SWMU 6/7

SWMU 23

AOC M

AOC J

CJ ..

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

N1 N2 N3 S1 S2 S3

Tissue [Cd] (m

g/kg dry weight)

Grid

Cadmium

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

N1 N2 N3 S1 S2 S3

Tissue [Sb] (m

g/kg dry weight)

Grid

Antimony

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

N1 N2 N3 S1 S2 S3

Tissue [As] (mg/kg dry weight)

Grid

Arsenic

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

N1 N2 N3 S1 S2 S3

Tissue [Ba] (mg/kg dry weight)

Grid

Barium

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

N1 N2 N3 S1 S2 S3

Tissue [Cr] (mg/kg dry weight)

Grid

Chromium

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

N1 N2 N3 S1 S2 S3

Tissue [Co] (m

g/kg dry weight)

Grid

Cobalt

FIGURE 11

MEAN (+/- SE) SMALL MAMMAL TISSUE CONCENTRATIONS BY SAMPLING GRID



0

0.5

N1 N2 N3 S1 S2 S3

Tiss…

Grid

MercuryMeadow Jumping Mouse

Meadow Vole

White-footed Mouse

II I • • l •

• • T

11

I I : t •

•

..

. . '

0

5

10

15

20

25

N1 N2 N3 S1 S2 S3

Tissue [Cu] (m

g/kg dry weight)

Grid

Copper

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

N1 N2 N3 S1 S2 S3

Tissue [Pb] (m

g/kg dry weight)

Grid

Lead

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

N1 N2 N3 S1 S2 S3

Tissue [Hg] (m

g/kg dry weight)

Grid

Mercury

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

N1 N2 N3 S1 S2 S3

Tissue [Se] (mg/kg dry weight)

Grid

Selenium

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

N1 N2 N3 S1 S2 S3

Tissue [Zn] (m

g/kg dry weight)

Grid

Zinc

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

N1 N2 N3 S1 S2 S3

Tissue [Ag] (m

g/kg dry weight)

Grid

Silver


MEAN (+/- SE) SMALL MAMMAL TISSUE CONCENTRATIONS BY SAMPLING GRID



0

0.5

N1 N2 N3 S1 S2 S3

Tiss…

Grid

MercuryMeadow Jumping Mouse

Meadow Vole

White-footed Mouse

+ i • • f •

f

1: I

FIGURE 12

NON-DEPURATED EARTHWORM TISSUE CONCENTRATIONS ALONG A GRADIENT OF SOIL CONCENTRATIONS



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Earthworm

[Cd] (m

g/kg dry weight)

Soil [Cd] (mg/kg dry weight)

Cadmium

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8Earthworm

[Sb] (m

g/kg dry weight)

Soil [Sb] (mg/kg dry weight)

Antimony

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 5 10 15Earthworm

[As] (mg/kg dry weight)

Soil [As] (mg/kg dry weight)

Arsenic

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 200 400 600Earthworm

[Ba] (mg/kg dry weight)

Soil [Ba] (mg/kg dry weight)

Barium

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 10 20 30Earthworm

[Cr] (mg/kg dry weight)

Soil [Cr] (mg/kg dry weight)

Chromium

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 5 10 15 20 25Earthworm

[Co] (m

g/kg dry weight)

Soil [Co] (mg/kg dry weight)

Cobalt

0100

0 0.5 1

E…

Soil [Cd] (mg/kg dry …

CadmiumNorth Grids South Grids

• • ••

.~ #. •

• -~ •

•

• •

• • • • .... • • i • • .......... •

•

• • • ••

•

' _,. .

• • • •

• ••

• • • • • • •

•

• • • . ,

•

• •

• •

• •

• •

•

•

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 1 2 3 4 5

Earthworm

[Hg] (m

g/kg dry weight)

Soil [Hg] (mg/kg dry weight)

Mercury

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 100 200 300

Earthworm

[Cu] (m

g/kg dry weight)

Soil [Cu] (mg/kg dry weight)

Copper

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 200 400 600 800

Earthworm

[Pb] (m

g/kg dry weight)

Soil [Pb] (mg/kg dry weight)

Lead

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 50 100 150 200

Earthworm

[Se] (mg/kg dry weight)

Soil [Se] (mg/kg dry weight)

Selenium

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 50 100 150 200 250

Earthworm

[Zn] (m

g/kg dry weight)

Soil [Zn] (mg/kg dry weight)

Zinc

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

Earthworm

[Ag] (m

g/kg dry weight)

Soil [Ag] (mg/kg dw)

Silver

0.00

20.00

0 2 4 6Eart

hw

or…

Soil [Hg] (mg/kg dry …

Mercury

North Grids South Grids


NON-DEPURATED EARTHWORM TISSUE CONCENTRATIONS ALONG A GRADIENT OF SOIL CONCENTRATIONS



•

•

•• • •

•-

.. . •

•

• •

•

• •

.-

•

• •

•

•

• •

•

•

•• • • •

•

•

• •

•• ., . ....... • • • •

•

•

•

•

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

SWMU 22

SWMU 1

SWMU 35

150

145

155

160

155

155

155

155

150

150

150

150

160

160

145

155

155

155

155

155

155

155

150

155

155

145

155

145

155

150

155

155

155

150

155 155

145

Fort Washington, PA

0 50 100 150 20025

Feet

Map Source:Image: NYSGIS (2004)Boundaries: Site and property boundaries approximations were determined using available data from historical maps and CAD files.q

Legend

#* SWMU 35 SOIL SAMPLESAPPROXIMATE SWMU/AOCBOUNDARY

SWMU 1/22 BOUNDARY

APPROXIMATE SITE BOUNDARY

CONTOUR INTERVAL (5 Feet)

Q:\G

IS_

Data

\HE

RC

UL

ES

\Pro

jects

\Fig

ure

13

SW

MU

35 S

urf

icia

l S

oil S

am

plin

g L

ocs.m

xd

FIGURE 13SWMU 35 SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS


PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

PE-35-SO-05

Analyte UnitsSoil Screening

CriteriaResult

Antimony mg/kg 0.27 0.16

Arsenic mg/kg 13 4.5

Barium mg/kg 433 87.2

Cadmium mg/kg 4 0.14

Chromium mg/kg 41 17

Cobalt mg/kg 13 8.9

Copper mg/kg 50 11.8

Lead mg/kg 63 22.8

Mercury mg/kg 0.18 0.13

Selenium mg/kg 3.9 0.55

Silver mg/kg 2 0.058

Zinc mg/kg 109 52.1

PE-35-SO-04


CriteriaResult



Barium mg/kg 433 286


Chromium mg/kg 41 21.7

Cobalt mg/kg 13 17.1


Lead mg/kg 63 31.5



Silver mg/kg 2 0.15

Zinc mg/kg 109 72.7

PE-35-SO-03


CriteriaResult




Cadmium mg/kg 4 0.1




Lead mg/kg 63 17.8




Zinc mg/kg 109 52.6

PE-35-SO-02


CriteriaResult








Lead mg/kg 63 21.8




Zinc mg/kg 109 61.7

PE-35-SO-01


CriteriaResult








Lead mg/kg 63 41.2




Zinc mg/kg 109 62.9

@;J I

$1

$1

$1

$1

$1$1

$1

$1

$1

$1

SWMU 26E

SWMU 11

SWMU 33

SWMU 6/7

AOC J

SWMU 46

SWMU 4

SWMU 9

AOC I

AOC M

AOC O

AOC N

AOC H

AOC G

SWMU 40

SWMU 27

SWMU 26D

SWMU 3/5

SWMU 10

SWMU 2

AOC A

SWMU 47

SWMU 42

SWMU 48

SWMU 21

SWMU 35

SWMU 26G

SWMU 52

AOC B

SWMU 1

SWMU 23

SWMU 32

SWMU 39

SWMU 29

SWMU 13

SWMU 54

SWMU 22

SWMU 8AOC C&D

Fort Washington, PA


Legend

$1 SITE DRAINAGE SEDIMENT SAMPLES

RAILROAD



SWAMP/MARSH

PERENNIAL STREAM

INTERMITTENT STREAM

! ARTIFICIAL PATH

CONNECTOR



SWMU 1/22 BOUNDARY


0 200 400 600 800100

Feet

Q:\G

IS_

Data

\HE

RC

UL

ES

\Pro

jects

\Fig

ure

10

Site

Dra

ina

ge

Se

d S

mp

Res.m

xd

FIGURE 14SITE DRAINAGE FEATURES - SEDIMENT SAMPLING RESULTS


PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Analyte Units 0.0'-0.05' 0.5'-1.0' 1.0'-1.5' 1.5'-2.0'

Antimony MG/KG 0.41 0.31 0.26 0.29

Arsenic MG/KG 9.5 8.3 6.9 7.9

Barium MG/KG 96.5 88.2 86.1 94.5

Cadmium MG/KG 2.1 0.51 0.34 0.27

Chromium MG/KG 18.6 19.6 19 20.4

Cobalt MG/KG 16.4 15.2 13.9 13.8

Copper MG/KG 125 99.2 72.7 53.1

Lead MG/KG 48.5 40.2 91.3 30.3

Mercury MG/KG 21.5 9.3 5.3 5.5

Selenium MG/KG 2.2 1.4 0.94 0.76

Silver MG/KG 0.054 0.046 0.039 0.04

Zinc MG/KG 69.9 69.3 65.4 68.3

PE-DRN-SD-01

Analyte Units 0.0'-0.05' 0.5'-1.0' 1.0'-1.5' 1.5'-2.0'

Antimony MG/KG 0.57 0.37 0.37 0.13

Arsenic MG/KG 7.4 6.4 6.4 3.9

Barium MG/KG 156 121 196 159

Cadmium MG/KG 7.5 3.9 1 0.41

Chromium MG/KG 23.2 16.7 25.7 23.5

Cobalt MG/KG 11.1 7.6 9.4 8.4

Copper MG/KG 794 582 63.9 27.7

Lead MG/KG 159 108 47.6 23.1

Mercury MG/KG 5.7 9 1.3 0.39

Selenium MG/KG 24.3 9.1 3.3 2.2

Silver MG/KG 0.36 0.19 0.19 0.13

Zinc MG/KG 156 111 94.6 67.9

PE-DRN-SD-02

Analyte Units 0.0'-0.05' 0.5'-1.0' 1.0'-1.5' 1.5'-2.0'

Antimony MG/KG 0.17 0.45 0.38 0.27

Arsenic MG/KG 5.6 72.6 26 12.3

Barium MG/KG 36.3 79.4 89.4 133

Cadmium MG/KG 0.67 2.2 2.4 1

Chromium MG/KG 5.8 12.4 8.9 19.6

Cobalt MG/KG 3.3 6.4 5.9 10.3

Copper MG/KG 89.9 189 115 213

Lead MG/KG 36.7 51.2 28 64.2

Mercury MG/KG 2.2 2.2 1 29.4

Selenium MG/KG 7.6 29.6 37.9 14.6

Silver MG/KG 0.62 0.47 0.49 0.36

Zinc MG/KG 107 1770 854 315

PE-DRN-SD-03

Analyte Units 0.0'-0.05' 0.5'-1.0' 1.0'-1.5' 1.5'-2.0'

Antimony MG/KG 0.13 0.11 0.063 0.061

Arsenic MG/KG 3.1 2.9 2.4 1.5

Barium MG/KG 161 133 152 140

Cadmium MG/KG 0.41 0.3 0.34 0.26

Chromium MG/KG 25.8 21.9 22.3 20

Cobalt MG/KG 10.7 9.7 8.8 8.8

Copper MG/KG 44.2 69.8 23.7 36.9

Lead MG/KG 21.1 18.4 18.3 17.9

Mercury MG/KG 1.6 1.9 0.57 0.25

Selenium MG/KG 2.2 1.9 2.2 1.1

Silver MG/KG 0.18 0.26 0.16 0.16

Zinc MG/KG 103 80.7 76.5 73.4

PE-DRN-SD-04

Analyte Units 0.0'-0.05' 0.5'-1.0' 1.0'-1.5' 1.5'-2.0'

Antimony MG/KG 0.59 0.13 0.095 0.1

Arsenic MG/KG 5.2 4 3.3 2.3

Barium MG/KG 187 165 163 195

Cadmium MG/KG 2.2 0.6 0.56 0.53

Chromium MG/KG 23.8 24.6 22.7 24

Cobalt MG/KG 10.4 9.8 9.1 9.4

Copper MG/KG 349 42.5 31.6 35.3

Lead MG/KG 71.6 22.9 21.1 21

Mercury MG/KG 10.7 0.81 0.46 0.36

Selenium MG/KG 26.5 3.3 3.3 3

Silver MG/KG 27.1 0.87 1.1 1.3

Zinc MG/KG 277 118 91.1 88

PE-DRN-SD-05

Analyte Units 0.0'-0.05' 0.5'-1.0' 1.0'-1.5' 1.5'-2.0'

Antimony MG/KG 0.5 0.66 0.47 0.43

Arsenic MG/KG 13.1 15.4 13.5 12.2

Barium MG/KG 166 207 165 150

Cadmium MG/KG 1.9 5.2 2 1.5

Chromium MG/KG 19 20.1 17.7 16.1

Cobalt MG/KG 10.4 12.7 10.6 9.3

Copper MG/KG 2240 4870 2700 3660

Lead MG/KG 209 356 212 211

Mercury MG/KG 24.2 34.3 31.1 73.6

Selenium MG/KG 9.3 16.1 9.6 9.3

Silver MG/KG 0.31 0.56 0.3 0.25

Zinc MG/KG 1030 1410 1200 874

PE-DRN-SD-06

Analyte Units 0.0'-0.05' 0.5'-1.0' 1.0'-1.5' 1.5'-2.0'

Antimony MG/KG 0.5 0.86 1.5 0.44

Arsenic MG/KG 18 15.4 15.5 10.3

Barium MG/KG 394 382 307 172

Cadmium MG/KG 4 4 4.1 1.6

Chromium MG/KG 23.6 22.3 30.4 20.4

Cobalt MG/KG 12.6 11.4 12.3 8.8

Copper MG/KG 6660 6550 5360 6940

Lead MG/KG 285 232 235 205

Mercury MG/KG 22.7 18.8 15.4 27.3

Selenium MG/KG 17.9 12.7 15.7 6.7

Silver MG/KG 0.85 0.4 0.34 0.3

Zinc MG/KG 1770 1370 1120 733

PE-DRN-SD-07

Analyte Units 0.0'-0.05' 0.5'-1.0' 1.0'-1.5' 1.5'-2.0'

Antimony MG/KG 0.61 1.2 0.67 0.23

Arsenic MG/KG 46.3 90.4 69.2 7.7

Barium MG/KG 121 167 153 114

Cadmium MG/KG 2.4 4.6 2.2 0.54

Chromium MG/KG 20.3 19.9 22 22.9

Cobalt MG/KG 9.4 13.6 19.9 31.5

Copper MG/KG 284 335 309 67.5

Lead MG/KG 185 137 176 38.3

Mercury MG/KG 4.6 6.1 114 6.5

Selenium MG/KG 9.8 10.5 6.8 1.7

Silver MG/KG 0.42 0.22 0.11 0.075

Zinc MG/KG 317 571 700 178

PE-DRN-SD-08

Analyte Units 0.0'-0.05' 0.5'-1.0' 1.0'-1.5' 1.5'-2.0'

Antimony MG/KG 0.091 0.12 0.19 0.19

Arsenic MG/KG 1.3 2.9 5.7 8.4

Barium MG/KG 101 83.2 97.8 82.6

Cadmium MG/KG 0.21 0.23 0.31 0.27

Chromium MG/KG 18.2 16.7 19.5 18.6

Cobalt MG/KG 11.6 10.3 13.2 11.9

Copper MG/KG 41.7 48 35.2 35.4

Lead MG/KG 19 25.3 21.8 21.1

Mercury MG/KG 8 4.6 1.4 1.3

Selenium MG/KG 0.63 0.87 0.69 0.63

Silver MG/KG 0.071 0.073 0.07 0.069

Zinc MG/KG 65.8 69.7 74.6 74.9

PE-DRN-SD-09

Analyte Units 0.0'-0.05' 0.5'-1.0' 1.0'-1.5' 1.5'-2.0'

Antimony MG/KG 0.12 0.11 0.15 0.31

Arsenic MG/KG 3.1 3.3 5.2 7.8

Barium MG/KG 108 104 97.2 95.7

Cadmium MG/KG 0.23 0.17 0.2 0.25

Chromium MG/KG 16.8 16.7 20.7 22

Cobalt MG/KG 8.7 10 12 13.9

Copper MG/KG 15.8 14.5 24.1 26.5

Lead MG/KG 23.8 17.4 16.1 19.5

Mercury MG/KG 2.8 0.28 0.12 0.12

Selenium MG/KG 0.99 0.65 0.49 0.56

Silver MG/KG 0.057 0.049 0.063 0.07

Zinc MG/KG 75.3 58.8 72.3 77.5

PE-DRN-SD-10

-+-

�-

�-

�-

�-

�-

�-

�-

�-

XW

XW

XW

XWPE-DNS-SD-01

PE-DNS-SD-02

PE-DNS-SD-03

PE-DNS-SD-04

PE-SQT-03

SQT-03

PE-SQT-06

PE-SQT-08

PE-SQT-07

PE-SQT-05

PE-SQT-04

PE-SQT-02

PE-SQT-01

Fort Washington, PA


Legend

XW SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATION

�- SQT STATION

RAILROAD

SWMU 1/22 BOUNDARY

EXPOSURE AREA

0 200 400 600100

Feet

Q:\G

IS_

Data

\HE

RC

UL

ES

\Pro

jects

\Fig

ure

15

SW

MU

1 &

22 C

om

ple

x W

ildlife

Exp

osure

.mxd

FIGURE 15SWMU 1/22 WILDLIFE EXPOSURE AREA


PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Exposure Area:

1.9 km stream

5.2 hectares

-+-!%<>! D --

FIG

UR

E16

BE

NT

HIC

CO

MM

UN

ITY

ME

TR

ICS

–S

UM

ME

RA

ND

FAL

L2010

–S

QT

ST

AT

ION

SF

WIA

ST

EP

IICIN

VE

ST

IGA

TIO

ND

YN

ON

OB

EL

PO

RT

EW

EN

SIT

EP

OR

TE

WE

N,N

EW

YO

RK

No

tes:

Indicates

astatistically

significantdifferencerelative

topooled

referencevalues.

EP

Trichness

metrics

were

notplotted

Mean Percent Dominance Mean Number of Taxa Mean Number of Taxa ..... ..... N

""' 0, 0:, 0 N

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... N N 0 N ~ 0, 0:, 0 N ~ 0 I.Tl 0 I.Tl 0 I.Tl

SQT-01 la-I

I SQT-01 ~ SQT-01 1---9---l

SQT-02 Htt I ~ SQT-02 1--9-i SQT-02 I SQT-03 1-a-l* SQT-03 I-at SQT-03 • SQT-04 1-9-1* (/) SQT-04 ............... SQT-04 ~

SQT-05 1-9-1* C SQT-05 1--9-i "' SQT-05 I-at V, 3 C C

SQT-06 1-9-l 3 SQT-06 ~ 3 SQT-06 1---9----1 3 ~ 3 3 SQT-07 t-a-1• ..,

SQT-07 1--9-i ~ SQT-07 ...... "'tJ I

.., I

II>

SQT-08 t-a-1 SQT-08 ~ SQT-08 . ... I '

(I) z I --i .., SQT-09 • 0 en SQT-09 ~ (") SQT-09 Htt Q,)

(I) 0 X (I) 0 SQT-10 1 • I en SQT-10 1---a--1 Q,) O SQT-10 1111 ::::,

r+ -t ::u ~ SQT-11 ::u ~ SQT-11 tWi 0 en SQT- 11 ............-i t--a-1 ... 0 0 gj SQT2-01 • I 0 e SQT2-01 ............... ::r ~ SQT2-01 ~ ::r I I 3 ::::,

~ .SQT2-02 ::::, ... O SQT2-02 I •• I I • I

o·s012-02 (I) (I) 1 • 1 ::::, :I I

I (/) g SQT2-03 (/) :I Q,) SQT2-03 (/) (/) SQT2-03 ::::, ~ 1 r+ SQT2-04 i--a-t SQT2-04 .......

SQT2-04 --i SQT2-05 ..,...._. .,. SQT2-05 1-11-t Q,)

I ~

..,., SQT2-05 1---W-'-I X SQT2-06 SQT2-06 • ~ .,. 0 I SQT2-06

I r ~ ::::, SQT2-07 • SQT2-07 • SQT2-07 • SQT2-08 1---a--1 SQT2-08 1-9-1

SQT2-08 • I SQT2-09 1-9-1 SQT2-09 ~

SQT2-09 t---0--I SQT2-10 1----G----i SQT2-10 ~

SQT2-10 1---Q-----i SQT2-11 1-----&---l SQT2-11 1-4-1

SQT2-11 I •

FIG

UR

E16

(con

tinu

ed)

BE

NT

HIC

CO

MM

UN

ITY

ME

TR

ICS

–S

UM

ME

RA

ND

FAL

L2010

–S

QT

ST

AT

ION

SF

WIA

ST

EP

IICIN

VE

ST

IGA

TIO

ND

YN

ON

OB

EL

PO

RT

EW

EN

SIT

EP

OR

TE

WE

N,N

EW

YO

RK

No

tes:

Indicates

astatistically

significantdifferencerelative

topooled

referencevalues.

EP

Trichness

metrics

were

notplotted

Mean PMA MeanHBI Mean Diversity ~ g -+>-- gJ ~

--.._J ~

..... 0 0 ..... ..... "' "' (.,) (.,) .s:,.. C) C) C) C) 0 """"' (;) .S:,.. <Jl O> --.J 00(0 0 b b b b b b b b bbbbbbbbbbb C) c.n C) c.n C) c.n C) c.n C)

SQT-01 • SQT-01 • SQT-01 • SQT-02 1-9-i I SQT-02 • SQT-02 • SQT-03 ..-.i• SQT-03 •• SQT-03 ,....__ SQT-04 ~ SQT-04 ... SQT-04 I • 1'* "' "' I "' SQT-05 1-9-l'* s::: SQT-05

C • SQT-05 I-al* s::: (/) 3 3 1~ 3 ::r

SQT-06 ........ 3 SQT-06 3 I • SQT-06 3 ll)

~ ~

~ ::::,

SQT-07 1-9-i* I ... ...

I SQT-07 ~· ... ::::, '"'C SQT-07 •

I~ 0

SQT-08 1-9-1 (l) SQT-08 (/) SQT-08 • I ::::, .....

0 (l) :E SQT-09 1-9-i (l) en SQT-09 • ::::, SQT-09 lei

~ SQT-10 ::::, ::r (/) (l)

I • I ... 0 SQT-1 0 • 0 O SQT-10 I • I

:::: -t :::i: -t ::::,

-tsor -11 .. en SQT-11 • en SQT-11 lltt (l)

(/) 0 OJ ..... - -~ QT2-01 ~ a. ~ .SQT2-01 I .. ~ SQT2-01 I • I 0 (l) 0 - 0 ~ g· SQT2-02 <' ci:;QT2-02 1-+--i )> :::, SQT2-02 i i 0 I • I (l)

:::, ..... SQT2-03 3 SQT2-03 ::::, SQT2-03 (/)

SQT2-04 ..... ::::, a. SQT2-04 1--9--i ~ ~

SQT2-04 • (l)

SQT2-05 I I~ SQT2-05 1.

X SQT2-05 ............ .,, ::::, .,, .,, ..

~ a. SQT2-06 • ~ SQT2-06 ~ SQT2-06 1--9--i (l)

I X SQT2-07 ..... SQT2-07 • SQT2-07 • I SQT2-08 1--9--i

I I SQT2-08 11---9--4 SQT2-08 1-11-i

SQT2-09 I • I SQT2-09 IOi SQT2-09 t-----a

SQT2-10 I • I SQT2-10 l-0-i SQT2-10 I • SQT2-1 1 I II I SQT2-11 • SQT2-11 --

Reference,

June

Reference, Oct

SWMU, June

SWMU, Oct

SQT-08SQT-01

SQT-02

SQT-11SQT-07

SQT-10

SQT-09SQT-05

SQT-06

SQT-03

SQT-04

SQT-06

SQT-11

SQT-04SQT-01SQT-08

SQT-05

SQT-09SQT-10

SQT-02

SQT-07

SQT-04

SQT-06

SQT-10

SQT-07

SQT-09

SQT-11

SQT-01

SQT-08

SQT-02

SQT-07

SQT-02

SQT-04

SQT-06

SQT-03

SQT-05

SQT-07

SQT-09

SQT-10SQT-08SQT-11

SQT-02

SQT-01

SQT-06

SQT-11

SQT-04

SQT-09SQT-10

SQT-08SQT-05SQT-01

SQT-07

SQT-02

SQT-04

SQT-03

SQT-09

SQT-06SQT-01SQT-02SQT-11SQT-10

SQT-08

SQT-05

SQT-07

SQT-06

SQT-01

SQT-04

SQT-08

SQT-05

SQT-09SQT-10

SQT-07

SQT-02

SQT-11

SQT-02

SQT-01SQT-07

SQT-08

SQT-01

SQT-05SQT-08SQT-09SQT-10

SQT-04

SQT-02

SQT-07

10

7.5

5

2.5

0

Wa

ter

Qu

ali

ty S

cale

SQT-03SQT-05SQT-03 SQT-03All Others All Others All Others

June June June June JuneOct Oct Oct OctOct

Mean

IndexSPP NCO HBI EPT

FIGURE 17

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT PROFILE – SUMMER AND FALL 2010 – SQT STATIONS



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

• ......................................... .... .............. ................... ..................................... ... .................................. ............................................. .

• • • • I

• • • • •

................. 1 .......................................................... ............ : ............... ~ .............. ! ............... •I .............................................. . • • • I •

• • • • • •

• • • • .................• ............. .. ,. ············• ··· ··················· ............• ................• .. ... ................... .........• .. .......................................... .. .

• • • • • •

• • I

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 10 20 30

% Survival

[Cd] (mg/kg)

Cadmium

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 5000 10000 15000 20000

% Survival

[Cu] (mg/kg)

Copper

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

% Survival

[Pb] (mg/kg)

Lead

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 20 40 60 80 100

% Survival

[Hg] (mg/kg)

Mercury

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 50 100 150 200 250

% Survival

[Se] (mg/kg)

Selenium

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

% Survival

[Zn] (mg/kg)

Zinc

0%100%

0 50 100

%

Surv

ival

[Hg] (mg/kg)

Hyalella azteca - Day 42 SurvivalDay 42 - No Statistical Significance Day 42 - Reference

Day 42 - Statistical Significance SQT3 Day 42 - Statistical Significance

FIGURE 18

HYALELLA AZTECA SEDIMENT TOXICITY TEST – DAY 42 SURVIVAL



SQT-01

SQT-02

SQT-04

SQT-05

SQT-06

SQT-07 SQT-08

SQT-01

SQT-02

SQT-04

SQT-05

SQT-06

SQT-07

SQT-08

SQT-01

SQT-02

SQT-04

SQT-05

SQT-06

SQT-07

SQT-08

SQT-01

SQT-02

SQT-04

SQT-06

SQT-07

SQT-05

SQT-08

SQT-01

SQT-02

SQT-04

SQT-05

SQT-06

SQT-07

SQT-08

SQT-01

SQT-02

SQT-04

SQT-05

SQT-06

SQT-07

SQT-08

D

•

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Dry Biomas

s (m

g)

[Zn] (mg/kg)

Zinc

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0 50 100 150 200 250

Dry Biomas

s (m

g)

[Se] (mg/kg)

Selenium

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0 20 40 60 80 100

Dry Biomas

s (m

g)

[Hg] (mg/kg)

Mercury

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Dry Biomas

s (m

g)

[Pb] (mg/kg)

Lead

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0 5000 10000 15000 20000

Dry Biomas

s (m

g)

[Cu] (mg/kg)

Copper

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0 10 20 30

Dry Biomas

s (m

g)

[Cd] (mg/kg)

Cadmium

FIGURE 19

HYALELLA AZTECA SEDIMENT TOXICITY TEST – DAY 42 BIOMASS


0%100%

0 50 100

%

Surv

ival

[Hg] (mg/kg)



SQT-01

SQT-02

SQT-04SQT-06

SQT-07

SQT-05

SQT-08

SQT-01

SQT-02

SQT-04SQT-06

SQT-07

SQT-05

SQT-08

SQT-01

SQT-02

SQT-04SQT-06

SQT-07

SQT-05

SQT-08

SQT-01

SQT-02

SQT-04 SQT-05

SQT-06

SQT-07

SQT-08

SQT-01

SQT-02

SQT-04

SQT-06

SQT-07

SQT-05

SQT-08

SQT-01

SQT-02

SQT-04

SQT-06

SQT-07

SQT-05

SQT-08

D

•

FIGURE 20

HYALELLA AZTECA SEDIMENT TOXICITY TEST – DAY 42 JUVENILES PER FEMALE



0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

0 10 20 30

Juve

nile

s Per Surviving Fem

ale

[Cd] (mg/kg)

Cadmium

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

0 5000 10000 15000 20000

Juve

nile

s Per Surviving Fem

ale

[Cu] (mg/kg)

Copper

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Juve

nile

s Per Surviving Fem

ale

[Zn] (mg/kg)

Zinc

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Juve

nile

s Per Surviving Fem

ale

[Pb] (mg/kg)

Lead

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

0 20 40 60 80 100

Juve

nile

s Per Surviving Fem

ale

[Hg] (mg/kg)

Mercury

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

0 50 100 150 200 250

Juve

nile

s Per Surviving Fem

ale

[Se] (mg/kg)

Selenium

0%100%

0 50 100

%

Surv

ival

[Hg] (mg/kg)



SQT-02SQT-04

SQT-05

SQT-06

SQT-07

SQT-08

SQT-01

SQT-01

SQT-02

SQT-04

SQT-06

SQT-07

SQT-05

SQT-08

SQT-01

SQT-02

SQT-04

SQT-06

SQT-07

SQT-05

SQT-08

SQT-01

SQT-02SQT-04

SQT-06

SQT-07

SQT-05

SQT-08

SQT-01

SQT-02

SQT-04

SQT-06

SQT-07

SQT-05

SQT-08

SQT-01

SQT-02

SQT-04

SQT-06

SQT-07

SQT-05

SQT-08

j l,J

l I

I

rn I II I

-· -

..

t

[ T .... -•

µ

r T

I I • -•

- . -

• --

-•

D

•

. IJ Lu

I~

!Ir I

rfi h I II

-• - • -

. I ~ Lu

I J ,. I -

Trt, ,1 I I I

-• - • -

... ~

IU

~

I -m

~ ~ I 11

-... . • -

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 100 200 300

% Survival

[Se] (mg/kg)

Selenium

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 1000 2000 3000

% Survival

[Pb] (mg/kg)

Lead

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 1000 2000 3000

% Survival

[Zn] (mg/kg)

Zinc

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 20 40 60 80 100

% Survival

[Hg] (mg/kg)

Mercury

0%100%

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000

%

Survi

val

[Cu] (mg/kg)

Chironomus riparius - Day 10 SurvivalReference No Statistical Significance - Site Statistical Significance - SQT-03

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 10 20 30

% Survival

[Cd] (mg/kg)

Cadmium

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 5000 10000 15000 20000

% Survival

[Cu] (mg/kg)

Copper

FIGURE 21CHIRONOMUS RIPARIUS SEDIMENT TOXICITY TEST – DAY 10 SURVIVAL


PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

SQT-01SQT-02

SQT-04

SQT-05

SQT-06SQT-07

SQT-08

SQT-01SQT-02

SQT-04

SQT-05

SQT-06SQT-07

SQT-08

SQT-01

SQT-02

SQT-04

SQT-05

SQT-06SQT-07

SQT-08

SQT-01SQT-02

SQT-04

SQT-05

SQT-06SQT-07

SQT-08

SQT-01 SQT-02

SQT-04

SQT-05

SQT-06

SQT-07

SQT-08

SQT-01SQT-02

SQT-04

SQT-05

SQT-06SQT-07

SQT-08

~ Ql w w I rn

:jl -r,

.

--

:i:) tpWW ~ 1"-o r, ·-

LJ

--

~ j cj:1,1 w !r' tp w w

]I !fi ~ !Tl ._ D

[ I] ~~ ...

'"' '"

- -- -

D •

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

0 10 20 30

Dry Biomas

s (g/organ

ism)

[Cd] (mg/kg)

Cadmium

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

0 5000 10000 15000 20000

Dry Biomas

s (g/organ

ism)

[Cu] (mg/kg)

Copper

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Dry Biomas

s (g/organ

ism)

[Pb] (mg/kg)

Lead

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

0 50 100 150 200 250

Dry Biomas

s (g/organ

ism)

[Se] (mg/kg)

Selenium

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Dry Biomas

s (g/organ

ism)

[Zn] (mg/kg)

Zinc

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

0 20 40 60 80 100

Dry Biomas

s (g/organ

ism)

[Hg] (mg/kg)

Mercury

0.001.00

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Dry

Bio

ma

s…

[Cd] (mg/kg)

CadmiumReference No Statistical Significance - Site

Statistical Significance - Site Statistical Significance - SQT-03

FIGURE 22CHIRONOMUS RIPARIUS SEDIMENT TOXICITY TEST - DAY 10 BIOMASS


PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

SQT-01

SQT-02

SQT-04

SQT-05

SQT-06

SQT-07SQT-08

SQT-01

SQT-02

SQT-04

SQT-05

SQT-06

SQT-07SQT-08

SQT-01

SQT-02

SQT-04

SQT-05

SQT-06SQT-07

SQT-08

SQT-01

SQT-02

SQT-04

SQT-05

SQT-06

SQT-07SQT-08

SQT-01

SQT-02 SQT-04

SQT-05

SQT-06

SQT-07

SQT-08

SQT-01

SQT-02

SQT-04

SQT-05

SQT-06

SQT-07SQT-08

D

•

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 5000 10000 15000 20000

% Emergen

ce

[Cu] (mg/kg)

Copper

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 10 20 30

% Emergen

ce

[Cd] (mg/kg)

Cadmium

0%100%

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000

%

Survi

val

[Cu] (mg/kg)

Chironomus riparius - Day 10 SurvivalReference No Statistical Significance - Site Statistical Significance - SQT-03

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

% Emergen

ce

[Pb] (mg/kg)

Lead

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 20 40 60 80 100

% Emergen

ce

[Hg] (mg/kg)

Mercury

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 50 100 150 200 250

% Emergen

ce

[Se] (mg/kg)

Selenium

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

% Emergen

ce

[Zn] (mg/kg)

Zinc

FIGURE 23CHIRONOMUS RIPARIUS TOXICITY TEST – PERCENT EMERGENCE


PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

SQT-01SQT-02

SQT-04

SQT-05 SQT-06

SQT-07SQT-08

SQT-01SQT-02

SQT-04SQT-05

SQT-06

SQT-07SQT-08

SQT-01

SQT-02

SQT-04

SQT-05 SQT-06

SQT-07SQT-08

SQT-01

SQT-02SQT-04

SQT-05SQT-06

SQT-07SQT-08

SQT-01SQT-02

SQT-04

SQT-05 SQT-06

SQT-07 SQT-08

SQT-01

SQT-02

SQT-04 SQT-05

SQT-06

SQT-07SQT-08

~o q ""

II"" .1. [ J

T I l

... ,.

--

l pq If! .J:. .. - 1 tt ULJ f

... r l

--

i;;i ~ T T Ii" J 11 'r t 'n

~b- Q 9 t5 ~ Jf - .1

.,I. [j

,J I 11,..

-. ~-•

J

- -- ""

D •

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350


Fis

h [

Me

Hg

] (n

g/g

we

t w

eig

ht)

Methyl Mercury

Forage - Golden Shiner



Threshold effect concentration (Beckvar et al. 2005) - 210 ng/g ww

FIGURE 24

FISH TISSUE METHYL MERUCRY CONCENTRATIONS BY REACH



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

I :

I

i-

APPENDIX A

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Solid and Hazardous Materials Bureau of Hazardous Waste and Radiation Management, 9

th Floor

625 Broadway, Albany, New York 12233-7258 Phone: (518) 402-8594 · FAX: (518) 402-9024 Website: www.dec.state.ny.us

June 25, 2009

Mr. Fred Jardinico

Environmental Manager

Dyno Nobel Inc.

161 Ulster Avenue

Ulster Park, NY 12487-5019

Dear Mr. Jardinico:

Re: Dyno Nobel

Sequential Mercury Analysis Work Plan and

Fish and Wildlife Impact Analysis - April 3, 2009

The Department has reviewed the Mercury Analysis work plan submitted on January 29,

2009 and the additional information you submitted on March 20, 2009. Based on these

documents and our subsequent phone conversations, we approve of the work plan. Please inform

the Department at least seven (7) days prior to the sampling event.

The Department has also reviewed the Fish and Wildlife Impact Analysis report, and has

accepted it with the following conditions and notes:

The subject line report was submitted as supplemental information to a previous Fish and

Wildlife Impact Analysis (FWIA) submittal. The document is not approved by DFWMR, but is

accepted as a flawed document. Dyno Nobel needs to proceed to Step IIC of a FWIA, which

includes an analysis of toxic effects of both the adjacent wetland complex, and on-site property.

A work plan of the investigation needs to be submitted to the Department for review by

DFWMR. The work plan needs to consider items noted in the April 4th

, 2008 memo from Mary

Jo Crance DFWMR Hazardous Waste Site Evaluation Unit to Paul Patel, which was forwarded

to Dyno Nobel. The Department has developed the following comments on the FWIA report:

1. DFWMR does not follow the same risk-assessment methodology as EPA, and does not

agree with the conclusions of the EPA-based risk assessment provided within this report.

The results of the Step IIC analysis will be used to determine detrimental risk to the

environment.

2. The evaluation of the Dyno Nobel site needs to include an evaluation of copper, lead,

cadmium, selenium, zinc and mercury both on site and within the adjacent wetland

complex. NYSDEC, DFWMR does not accept the use of AVS/SEM analysis for the

availability of metals. If Dyno Nobel wishes to pursue this testing, it may do so, but do

not include the results within the FWIA, Step IIC report. Concurrent with biota

collection, soil and sediment sampling for metal analysis will be necessary to determine

contaminant levels within the biota collection areas.

3. The assessment of the bio-availability of metals on-site needs to include the collection of

small mammals within contaminated on-site areas, with the shrews being the target

mammal.

4. Dyno Nobel needs to provide a delineation of the reactive soils both off and on-site and

provide this information on a figure. Biota sampling should occur as close as possible to

areas outside of reactive soils with restricted activities. The boundaries of the reactive

soils will need to be verified by a energetic professional engineer with expert credential.

5. The ecological evaluation would need to include:

a. Multi-seasonal baseline community sampling from impacted and non-impacted

areas that includes at a minimum fish and benthic sampling,

b. Metal tissue analysis, preferably of fish, or alternatively from predatory

invertebrates or arachnids, as well as terrestrial small mammals.

c. Toxicity testing of impacted and non-impacted wetland and stream sediments both

during a time-period deemed to have the most anoxic conditions of the year and

during a time-period when anoxic conditions do not exist.

The soil samples for the sequential mercury analysis must be collected by August 14,

2009 and a work plan for a Step IIC of a FWIA, which addresses all the concerns listed above,

must be submitted to this office by August 31, 2009.

If you have any questions you may contact me at (518) 402-8602 or Mary Jo Crance at

(518) 402-8972 .

Sincerely,

/s/

Paul Patel, P.E.

Environmental Engineer

Eastern Engineering Section

Bureau of Hazardous Waste and Radiation

Management.

cc: J. Reidy, EPA Reg. 2

ecc: S. Parisio, Reg. 3

K. Gronwald

K. Kulow, DOH

M. Crance, DFW

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Solid· & Hazardous Materials Bureau of Hazardous Waste and Radiation Management, 9th Floor 625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233-7258 Phone: (518) 402-8594 • Fax: (518) 402-9024 Website: www.dec.ny.gov

Mr. Fred Jardinico Environmental Manager Dyno Nobel, Inc. 161 Ulster A venue Ulster Park, NY 12487-5019

Dear Mr. Jardinico:

December 10, 2009

Re: Dyno Nobel, Port Ewen, NY Site No. 356001, Response to "Request for Clarification on NYSDEC Comments dated June 25, 2009 on the Fish and Wildlife Impact Analysis Step IIB Report Dated April 3, 2009," Prepared by URS for Ashland Incorporated and Dyno Nobel North America, Dated August 25, 2009, Village of Port Ewen, Ulster County.

Alexander B. Grannis Commissioner

The subject line letter was submitted to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) as requested during the conference call on July 29, 2009. The subject line letter asks seventeen questions, of which the majority relate to a United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEP A) Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund sites (USEP A ERA GS), which was incorporated into the Fish and Wildlife Impact Assessment (FWIA). The submitted questions were not outlined; however, the outlined response below is being submitted to clarify the confusion about the two documents, and to help guide Dyno Nobel through the FWIA process.

The purpose of the FWIA is to assess environmental impact; the purpose of the USEP A ERA GS is to develop a risk assessment; the Division of fish; Wildlife & Marine Resoures

· (DFWMR) does not equate the purposes of the two documents. It is not necessary to include a USEP A ERA GS risk assessment within the FWIA, but if Dyno Nobel is interested in doing the additional work of the USEP A ERAGS for inclusion in the FWIA, it may do so under guidance of DFWMR. The USEP A ERA GS can be used as one line of evidence of an impact assessment, but the risk assessment does not eliminate any sampling or toxicity testing element required for the FWIA.

If the risk assessment is to be included within the FWIA, the following items need to be modified:

I. Please segregate the risk assessment into an appendix (perhaps into Appendix G) or a separate document and cite only the risk assessment results into the FWIA report. The result will be reported along with other lines of evidence in the FWIA report. Please

I I

I I i

L

Mr. Fred Jardinico 2.

note, if the items below are not satisfactorily addressed, the risk assessment cannot be included in the FWIA;

2. The ecological conceptual model needs to be modified for use in the impact assessment:

a. The model needs to join off-site and on-site categories together because both have contaminated soils, surface water, sediment and groundwater. The division of the terrestrial and wetland potential ecological receptors is unrealistic. Most of the receptors move between the two areas. Remove the artificial division between the terrestrial and wetland potential ecological receptors;

b. The ecological conceptual model needs to sho~ the following ex.posure routes:

1. Direct ingestion of surface water is a potential exposure route for every receptor;

11. Direct ingestion of soil is a potential exposure route for all receptors; 111. Direct rngestion of terrestrial biota is a potential exposure route for

omnivorous mammals, aerial insectivores, and the specific model species -mink and heron;

1v. Direct ingestion of aquatic biota is a potential exposure route for large herbivores, carnivorous mammals, carnivorous birds, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish/amphibians; and

v. Direct contact/absorption is a potential exposure route for terrestrial and aquatic biota;

3. The risk assessment needs to model all receptors of the corrected ecological conceptual site model that have a potential exposure;

4. TRVs need to be developed using NOAELs and/or LOAELs accepted by DFWMR. Some weight for deriving these values will be given to site-specific testing. It is expected that further disGYssion on-this topie -eetween-DFWMR and Dyno Nobel will result in an acceptable NOAEL and/or LOAEL derivation. DFWMR will be available to meet and discuss this topic further;

5. Further explanation is needed on how the background dose was calculated. Background dose needs to be derived from off-site, un-impacted sediment, soil, and water measurements. DFWMR will reserve the right to comment further on the background dose calculation after the explanation is provided;

6. The risk assessment model must be calibrated using site-specific tissue data of terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates, small mammals and fish;


7. All calculations of the risk model and calculations of the components·of the risk model need to be included in an appendix. For example, the calculation of the 95th Upper Confidence Limit of the soil concentrations used within the risk assessment" model needs to be included in the appendix;

8. Additional columns need to be added to the Appendix G tables which include all the input values used in the model calculation;

9. Provide the digital risk assessment calculation spreadsheets in a Microsoft Excel format . on a compact disk with the report;

10. Habitat quality of forging areas in and/or around the AOCs and SWMUs listed below is considered of high value. The habitat within and/or around these areas need to be evaluated both in the risk assessment and the impact assessment. Wildlife will selectively forage in these areas. The Area Us_e Factor need to be weighted towards these areas:

a. _AOCs-A, B, C, D, M, N, 0, G, H, J; b. SWMU - 23, 27, 52 specifically for the intermittent stream which flows through

or near these SWMUs; c. SWMUs within 100 feet of tree and/or shrub cover, and that have a vegetated

surface;

Further comments on the FWIA:

11. Please note, when listing COPCs in the text, COPCs are any contaminants that exceed NYSDEC sediment LELs, or water or soil criteria used for the protection of ecological resources. If a detection limit of laboratory analysis is not sufficient to measure the contaminant at or below these state criteria, the contaminant defaults to a COPC. Corrections need to be made in the document to list all COPCs;

. . 12. As noted in previous submitted comments, suitable habitats for T &E species are found

o~-site, or within the impacted off-site areas. Corrections within the text of the document are necessary;

13: The subject line letter asked for clarification on testing procedures which post-date the NYSDEC Technical Guidance for Screening Contaminated Sediments and the FWIA. These documents are currently being updated. These updated guidance documents will clarify NYSDEC's position on the use of sampling techniques developed since publication of the current guideline documents. Until the updated guidance documents are published, DFWMR personnel must be consulted about what impact-assessment methodologies will be used in the FWIA. DFWMR personnel will relay the current position ofNYSDEC, which will be included in the updated guidance;


14. Based on current information, as well as on DFWMR experience in evaluating contaminated sites, the use of A VS/SEM cannot be used as the sole basis for establishing remediation goals or determining impacts to environmental resources for the following reasons:

a. The A VS/SEM approach has been well-tested in the laboratory under controlled conditions, but DFWMR has reviewed very few studies where the A VS/SEM has been applied in the field· to successfully establish remediation goals. Some studies that we have reviewed have shown that A VS/SEM alone did not successfully predict a lack of toxicity in the field; that is, A VS/SEM predicted a lack of toxicity but toxicity was observed, even though the source of toxicity might have been attributable to a source besides metals (Delistraty and Yokel 2007);

b. ·The A VS/SEM relationship has been shown to vary spatially as well as seasonally, and even diurnally. Also, the A VS/SEM relationship is dependent upon the maintenance of anoxic conditions in sediment. DFWMR has not reviewed studies that convincingly demonstrate that metals precipitated as sulfides are irreversibly bound despite changes in sediment characteristics such as the redox potential and oxygen content. Because of the dynamic nature of sediments, particularly in lotic waters, these are important considerations;

c. It has been documented that organisms can accumulate concentra~ions of metals, even in sediments where the AVS concentration greatly exceeds the SEM concentration (De Jonge, et al. 2009). A VS/SEM does not consider bioaccumulation and trophic transfer; or the potential for antagonistic, additive, or synergistic effects; ·

d. Studies indicate that dry weight nonnalization is frequently as good a predictor of toxicity as bioavailability normalizations, such as TOC and A VS (Wenning, et al. 2005);

The A VS/SEM theory fails particularly at the DynoNobel site because:

e. Given the intermittent stream and shallow water within the wetland, and the fact that the wetland has a stream flowing through it, it is unlikely that there will long periods of anoxic conditions, a condition which the A VS/SEM theory relies upon. The methodology cannot consistently predict toxic effects in varying redox potential environments; and site conditions indicate that the redox potential will vary seasonally at this site;

f. A VS/SEM testing is not used for assessi~g enviromnental impact of mercury, the contaminant which is of most concern within the wetland and stream sediments. Sulfur-reducing bacteria convert mercury into the more bioavailable and toxic methylated form. This means 'that while sulfur-reducing bacteria may theoretically render the specified six divalent metals less bioavailable, the bacteria would be available to convert mercury to the more toxic methylmercury form; and


g. Use of A VS/SEM as a predictive tool would need to include collection and analysis for A VS/SEM as well as chronic toxicity tests, bioaccumulation data, and benthic community analysis for a complete assessment of the toxicity of sediments; thus, the AVS/SEM becomes additional testing which Dyno Nobel can do if it chooses, but the results of the community assessment and the toxicity tests will be considered with greater weight in the light of site-specific circumstances. DFWMR is willing to allow for the use of A VS/SEM as a line of evidence in a weight of evidence approach to assessing risks from contaminated sediment. For example, given the situation where metals concentrations in sediment suggested a significant risk but toxicity testing and benthic macroinvertebrate community analysis showed an acceptable benthic community, a high A VS/SEM ratio would suggest that the metals were not bioavailable; however, a finding such as this must still consider the dynamic nature of the sediments in-the reversibility of the metal binding;

15. Dyno Nobel needs to complete the FWIA procedure up to and including Step IIC as repeatedly requested by NYSDEC.

The ecological evaluation would need to include:

a. Spring 2010 and summer 2010 baseline community sampling from impacted and non-impacted areas that includes at a minimum fish arid benthic sampling;

b. Wetland and terrestrial tissue analysis; which includes but is not limited to fish, oligochaetes, and small mammals (a likely target mammal is shrews). Tissue analysis will be used to evaluate impact to predators as well as impact on the target organisms. NYSDEC disagrees with arguments presented by URS stating that tissue sampling cannot indicate potential environmental resource impact;

c. Toxicity testing of impacted and non-impacted reference wetland and stream sediments;

d. Concurrent with biota collection, soil and sediment sampling for metal analysis will be necessary to detennine contaminant levels at the biota collection sampling sites;

e. Dyno Nobel needs to provide a D size figure cl~arly depicting on-site and off-site areas of restricted activities within or over the soil. The figure or text should define the nature of the restrictions. This figure is necessary to plan the location of on-site and off-site biota sampling, and concurrent soil and/or sediment sampling. Biota sampling will occur as close as possible to areas outside of reactive soils with restricted activities:

1. Dyno Nobel has noted: "These areas are no longer restricted. The only areas that remain restricted are the landfills and SWMU 48 relative to intrusive activities. There is no evidence at these locations of energetic materials at the surface at these locations. Rather, consistent with agreements reached with the Department during completion of the RCRA Facility Investigation (RPI), investigation within these areas is restricted given the potential for the buried energetic materials and the health and

Mr. Fred J ardinico 6 .

• concerns associated with intrusive activities in these areas. As long as the areas are not disturbed, there is no hazard." Please define "intrusive activities" so it can be determined if biota sampling and concurrent soil and sediment sampling could be considered intrusive; and

16. Dyno Nobel has asked:

"Exclusion of areas currently slated for remedial action (Section 4.0; Section 5.0): please confirm if there is agreement that the FWIA Step lIC investigations (e.g., sampling) are not warranted in areas that are slated for remedial action in the current CMS." Pre-remediation baseline sampling would be necessary at locations slated for remedial action. Areas not slated for a remedial action, or slated for a remedial action which would not separate contaminated media from environmental resources (such as a permeable soil cover) would require an impact assessment. The design specifications of the landfill would need to be reviewed prior to determining if environmental resources would have potential exposure.

A work plan for a Step IIC of a FWIA, which addresses all the concerns listed above, must be submitted to this office by January 20,2010. Please note that if sampling is to be done in any areas that pose a risk to personnel, appropriate safety measures must be maintained, including the use of consultants with expertise in dealing with potentially reactive soil.

If you have any questions you may contact me, at (518) 402-8602, or Mary Jo Crance, at (518) 402-8972 .

cc: J. Reidy, USEP A Reg. 2

ecc: K. Brezner, Reg. 3 K. Gronwald K. Kulow, DOH M. Crance, DFW

Literature cited:

Paul Patel, P .E. Environmental Engineer Eastern Engineering Section Bureau of Hazardous Waste & Radiation Management Division of Solid & Hazardous Materials

De Jonge, M., F. Dreesen, J. De Paepe, R. Blust, and L. Bervoets, 2009. Do acid volatile sulfides (A VS) influence the accumulation of sediment-bound metals to benthic invertebrates under natural field conditions? Environ. Sci. Technol. 43(12):4510-4516


Delistraty, D., and J. Yokel, 2007. Chemical and ecotoxicological characterization of Columbia River sediments below the Hanford Site (USA). Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 66:16-28 (2007)

Wenning, R.J. , G.E. Bately, C.G. Ingersoll, and D.W. Moore, editors, 2005. Use of Sediment Quality Guidelines and Related Tools for the Assessment of Contaminated Sediments . . Pensacola (FL): Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). 815 p.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Solid & Hazardous Materials Bureau of Hazardous Waste & Radiation Management, 9 th Floor 625 Broadway, Albany, New York 12233-7258

Phone: ( 518) 402-8594 • Fax: ( 518) 402-9024 Website: www.dcc.ny.gov

Mr. Fred Jardinico Environmental Manager" Dyno Nobel, Inc. 161 Ulster A venue Ulster Park, NY 12487-50 I 9

Dear Mr. Jardinico:

April 15, 2010

Alexander B. Grannis Commissioner

Re: Dyno Nobel Site No. 356001, Response to "Fish and Wildlife Impact Analysis Step ITC Investigation Work Plan" Dated April 1, 2010", Prepared by URS for Ashland Incorporated and Dyno Nobel North America, Village of Port Ewen, Ulster County.

The referenced work plan has been reviewed by the Department and did not fulfill the requirements of our March 12, 2010 letter. However, it was close enough that we are approving the work plan with the following conditions:

· Sampling location-!. Stations need to be selected based on information previous sediment investigations,

targeting areas of known high concentrations of each of the COCs. Toxicity test and sediment samples need to be located at the following previous sampling locations; 01-15-1.0, 22-08-1.0, 22-02-1.0, 22-04-1.0, and 22-15-1.0. Benthic community samples will be taken near/around the following samples; 01-15-1.0, 22-15-1.0, and 22-04-1.0. A map that specifically denotes the sampling locations of the sediment collected for the toxicity test/sediment analysis and the benthic community samples, and a map that includes the reference sampling locations, needs to be submitted for approval by the Department.

Toxicity testing-2. The use of Latin-square sampling design is not appropriate for the current investigation

as proposed. Sediment metal analysis, referred in the work plan as "bulk sediment analysis", must be done on an aliquot of the sediments (n=5) that are used in the toxic tests. The laboratory can split the homogenized sediment sample to ensure toxicity testing integrity. The entire metal suite analysis will be done for each sediment aliquot. Analysis of sediment beyond what done for the toxicity test .md the on-site tributaries is at the discretion of Dyno Nobel.

3. Additional toxicity testing can be performed in the laboratory to determine a toxic rating curve (through serial dilution) if the initial testing indicates toxicity. The field effort would need to collect additional sediment volume which the laboratory would need to store until the end of the initial tests.

40ear, of stewardship l970-20IO

Mr. Fred J ardinico 2.

4. The PRP is responsible for contacting the laboratory and asking the volume needed to support all testing purposes. Field work must collect enough sediment for each sample for both the toxicity testing and the bulk sediment analysis.

5. After further review of the site-specific contaminants and the organisms selected for the toxicity tests, the Department would prefer using the metal-contaminant sensitive C. riparius rather than C. dilutus. Revise the toxicity testing work plan to use C. riparius.

6. Growth and reproduction measurement endpoints need to be included in the summary table of toxicity testing results.

A VS-SEM sampling-?. The Department finds the use of A VS-SEM inappropriate for the wetland/stream

complex of 1/22 AOC. The Department does not need the result of the sampling, and therefore it is inappropriate to include this information within the FWIA document. Against the Department's advice, Dyne Nobel is proceeding with the collection of AVSSEM sampling. Please note, the information will not be used as a line of evidence to determine site impact. Because Dyno Nobel is collecting these samples on their own volition, they can elect to locate samples, and sample depths however they choose.

Reporting of data collection-8. Laboratory and field data sheets need to be submitted in an appendix of the FWIA. A

separate swnmary data table needs to be included for each aspect of the work plan. For example, there needs to be a separate data summary table for the surface water and sediment chemical analysis, one for the benthic community collection, one for the fish community collection, one each for the tissue analysis types (fish, benthic, small mammal), and one for the toxicity test results.

Fish Collection . 9. All fish collected at the first and second sampling stations will be kept until the third

station sampling is completed. Target species will be selected based on the common denominators amongst all the stations. A minimum of 5 larger individual fish and 5 composite samples of forage fish are to be collected at each sampling station.

Benthic community collection~ 10. A traditional collection device, such as a ponar or mini-ponar will be used to collect

benthic community samples in WMA 1/22. Past field inspections did not find phragmite growing profusely in standing water. Areas of benthic sampling will be collected in areas of permanently innodated with water which are unlikely to have thick phragmite root mats. The use of the proposed coring sampler can be retained as a backup sampling device if phragmite growth is problematic.


Small mammal trapping-11. In order to facilitate the capture of shrews, two changes should be made to the sampling

plan. The bait should include a component of meat-based product, such as bacon grease, and the traps should be placed in microhabitats that would favor shrews, such as along or under fallen logs or along visible trails.

12. Five samples will be collected from each sampling grid. The target mammal is the shrew, however if five shrews are not collected from a grid, the sample number (n=5) will be completed using alternate species (i.e., mouse).

Invertebrate collection -13. The purpose of collecting worms and invertebrates is. to understand the transfer of site

specific contaminants to predators higher in the food chain. The worms and invertebrates should not be depurated before tissue analysis.

14. For earthworm tissue analysis, each sample needs only to meet the weight needed for laboratory analysis which was stated in the work plan as 2.5 grams. There is no reason to obtain 20 grams of earthworm tissue for each sample as stated in the workplan. It is reasonable to collect 3 grams of earthworm for each sample to conservatively ensure there is enough tissue to meet laboratory requirements. To collect the 3 grams of tissue, up to 10 sample points would be considered a sufficient effort. Insufficient sample mass collection will not be accepted as evidence that earthworms are not a significant forage base to wildlife. The work plan needs to be revised to reflect the noted sample size and collection effort. If laboratory tissue requirements are not 2.5 grams, the Department should be notified.

On-site tributary sediment collection-15. Sediment samples will be collected in a coring devise from 0-24". The sediments will be

divided and analyzed as follows; 0-6", 6-12", 12 to 18" and 18"-24".

Now that the FWIA has been approved, Dyno ·must begin the implementation of the FWIA by April 30, 2010. In addition, the FWIA workplan must be modified to incorporate these conditions and a finalized version submitted to this office by April 30, 2010.


Note that for each day past April 30, 2010 that a finalized work plan meeting the above criteria is remains unsubmitted to this office, Dyno Nobel will be in violation of its 373 Permit, and be liable in the case of a first violation, for a civil penalty not to exceed $37,500 and an additional penalty of not more than $37,500 for each day during which such violation continues, after such notice and opportunity to be heard by the commissioner.

If you have any questions you may contact me at (518) 402-8602.

cc: C. Stein, USEP A Reg. 2

Sincerely,

,µ~ Paul Patel, P .E. Environmental Engineer Eastern Engineering Section Bureau of Hazardous Waste & Radiation Management Division of Solid & Hazardous Materials

1

TO: Paul Patel – NYSDEC Mary Jo Crance – NYSDEC DFWMR Rebecca Quail – NYSDEC DFWMR

DATE: May 26, 2010

FROM: Gary Long – URS

PROJECT: Dyno Nobel Port Ewen FWIA Step IIC

cc : John Hoffman, Ashland

Fred Jardinico, Dyno Nobel

Neal Olsen, Dyno Nobel

Nigel Goulding, EHS-Support

Andy Patz, EHS-Support SUBJECT: Summary of SQT Station Modifications and Sampling Program

Updates Dyno Nobel Port Ewen FWIA Step IIC Investigation Port Ewen, New York

This memorandum provides a summary of the proposed modifications to sediment quality triad

(SQT) sampling stations identified in the April 30, 2010 work plan for Fish and Wildlife Impact

Analysis (FWIA) Step IIC investigations at the Dyno Nobel Port Ewen Site in Port Ewen, New

York (the site). The proposed modifications are based on conditions observed during a site

reconnaissance conducted May 11 – 12, 2010 and subsequent discussions with Mary Jo Crance

of the Division of Fish, Wildlife, and Marine Resources (DFWMR) during a site walk on May

13, 2010. The proposed modifications are consistent with the summary of the site walk provided

by Mary Jo Crance via email on May 14, 2010. Updates to sampling program reference

locations and sampling schedule are also provided.

The following elements of the study were discussed during the May 13, 2010 site walk and

addressed in the email from DFWMR:

�� Subsequent benthic community sampling: It was agreed that any potential benthic

community sampling subsequent to the June event would be conducted in late September.

�� Refinement of SQT sampling locations: Modifications to the placement of three SQT stations

were discussed (identified based on historic sample ID):

ooo 22-02-1.0 (west side of SWMU 22): At the time of the reconnaissance there was

approximately 6-8 inches of stagnant, standing water at the station. Relocation of the

station was discussed because this area is likely an ephemeral habitat that would not

support permanent benthic communities and may not be inundated in June; therefore,

it would not be appropriate for benthic community sampling or toxicity testing. DFWMR

indicated a preference for this station based on historical high mercury concentrations

determined in sediments (89 ppm), but agreed that it would be appropriate to move the

station if the area was not inundated in June. It was agreed that DFWMR would be called

from the field to make a determination regarding this station at the time of sampling. An

alternate station, approximately 50 feet west of the original station in an area of greater

inundation (flowing water), was staked as a contingency. It is recommended that the

surface water sample be collected from the contingency station regardless of conditions at

2

the original station in June. The potential downside to sediment sampling at the

contingency station is that mercury concentrations in the alternate area have not been

characterized in previous sampling efforts. The lack of historic data creates uncertainty

as to where this data point will fall in the dose-response gradient.

ooo 22-04-1.0 (northern tip of SWMU 22): At the time of the reconnaissance, the area was

saturated but not inundated. DFWMR agreed that the station was not appropriate for

benthic community or toxicity testing given the lack of habitat for benthic invertebrate

communities. A transect was surveyed from the northern tip of SWMU 22 to the

opposite uplands and an alternate station staked at the point of greatest inundation,

approximately 75 feet to the north of the original station. The contingency station will be

evaluated at the time of sampling to determine its appropriateness for the SQT studies.

As with the contingency described above for 22-02-1.0, the potential downside to the

alternate station for 22-04-1.0 is the lack of historic chemical data for sediment in this

area. The proposed surface water location at 22-04-1.0 will be moved to 22-15-1.0.

ooo 22-33-1.0: This is the most downstream station proposed in the work plan. The

reconnaissance findings at this station indicated that the area had limited sediment

(mostly Phragmites root mat) and would not be ideal for SQT studies. A more ideal

station was identified approximately 75 feet downstream where the confluence of two

drainage channels through the wetland create a sediment depositional area.

DFWMR agreed with the location of the alternate station.

�� Reference wetland: URS has obtained permission to sample the reference wetland on Scenic

Hudson’s Gordon/Paul Jayson Property. DFWMR and URS agreed during the site walk that

this wetland is the preferred reference wetland for its comparability to the site wetland. URS

also has permission from the adjacent landowner, Paul Jayson, to access the wetland from

Floyd Ackert Road.

Additional challenges to the investigation that were identified by the reconnaissance survey and

communicated to DFWMR during the site walk include:

�� Lack of available open water areas to electroshock fish: Much of the wetland is overgrown

by Phragmites, limiting the ability to effectively electroshock except in small pockets of open

water. In the open water areas, the depth of soft sediment will also limit the mobility of the

sampler and the effectiveness of the shocking. DFWMR acknowledged these limitations and

indicated that sample will be collected in areas where we are able to safely access and

effectively sample; DFWMR confirmed the desire to be present for the fish sampling effort.

�� Limited invertebrate sample mass observed in sediment: Test sieving and observations at

each SQT station indicate that obtaining requisite sample mass of invertebrates may be

challenging. DFWMR indicated that a reasonable effort will have to be made to obtain the

sample mass.

�� Limited depth of sediment in site drainages: In staking the site drainage locations, the depth

of sediment varied from approximately 6 inches (mostly upgradient stations) to greater than

24 inches (mostly downgradient stations). Therefore, the collection of four discrete sampling

3

6-inch sampling intervals in cores from each station will likely be problematic. As stated in

the work plan, 6-inch intervals will be collected from the surface of the sediment to the

refusal depth. DFWMR agreed that we will collect the sediment that is available, making

sure to collect sufficient sample volume for each targeted interval.

The sampling effort is scheduled to begin the week of June 14, 2010. The tentative schedule for

specific tasks include:

� June 14 – 18: Surface water sampling, SQT sampling, benthic invertebrate tissue

sampling, and SWMU 35 soil sampling;

� June 21 – 25: Small mammal/earthworm tissue sampling/soil sampling, fish

community/tissue sampling (June 22), site drainage sediment sampling;

This schedule is tentative and may be modified based on weather and field conditions; NYSDEC

will be notified of any significant changes in schedule.

We would suggest that we also coordinate a project meeting during the week of June 14th

between the NYSDEC, DFWMR, and the Dyno Nobel and Ashland team to discuss overall

project schedule and strategy.

Andrew Patz 133 Southern Farms Road, Worthington, PA 16262 412-215-7703 [email protected] www.ehs-support.com

MEMO

To: Paul Patel - NYSDEC Mary Jo Crance - NYSDEC Keith Gronwald - NYSDEC

From: Andy Patz - EHS Support Corp

CC: John Hoffman - Ashland Neal Olsen - Dyno Nobel Fred Jardinico - Dyno Nobel

Date: June 23, 2010

Re: Summary of the June 17, 2010 Port Ewen Meeting

We would like to thank you, Mary Jo Crance, and Keith Gronwald for the opportunity to meet and discuss the status of the Port Ewen facility project on June 17, 2010. A draft summary of our discussions is provided below. If you could review the draft summary and provide any comments or clarifications, we will finalize and this memorandum for your files. June 17, 2010 Project Meeting, Port Ewen, New York The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and Ashland/ Dyno Nobel (the project team) held a project update meeting on June 17, 2010 at the Port Ewen Dyno Nobel facility. The meeting focused on the ongoing Fish and Wildlife Impact Analysis (FWIA) as well as key tasks that will be required as part of the overall facility investigation and closure. The meeting was very productive and the project team discussed and reviewed several technical issues and general project tasks. The meeting was also an opportunity to introduce new members of the project team to the NYSDEC. Attendees/ Project Team: Paul Patel – NYSDEC Mary Jo Crance- NYSDEC Keith Gronwald – NYSDEC John Hoffman – Ashland Neal Olsen – Dyno Nobel Fred Jardinico – Dyno Nobel Gary Long – URS Nigel Goulding – EHS Support Corp Andrew Patz - EHS Support Corp

Paul Patel June 17, 2010 Port Ewen Meeting June 23, 2010

Ecological Assessment Update The project team reviewed the status of the ongoing FWIA Step IIC field evaluation; the following items were discussed:

• URS provided an overview of progress on the field evaluations and discussed, for the members of the project team and the other NYSDEC staff, the modifications to the sampling locations that URS (Gary Long) and NYSDEC (Mary Jo Crance) had collaboratively agreed on in the field.

• Benthic tissue sample mass o URS discussed the challenges the team were facing in collecting sufficient

benthic tissue sample mass. A “market basket” approach was proposed where all taxons collected, within each sampling station, would be composited in order to achieve the adequate tissue sample mass. It was agreed by all parties that compositing of the sample into a market basket was acceptable and should be implemented.

o Despite the compositing of benthic tissue samples, it was noted that the market basket approach provided insufficient sample mass to undertake the analytical testing proposed in the work plan. A number of options were identified and these included :

(1) Only testing of samples for mercury using the work plan specified EPA Method 1630/1631, (2) Analysis of all of the metal analytes outlined in the work plan through a modified Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP MS) method.

The benefits of Option 2 were discussed in the meeting (provision of results for all metal constituents) however, the modified method has not yet been approved by EPA. The project team agreed that analysis by ICP MS was the preferred approach. Mary Jo Crance indicated she would discuss the modified method with Larry Skinner (NYSDEC Albany) and confirm that it was acceptable to the NYSDEC. Subsequently, Mary Jo sent an email to the team on June 18, 2010 approving the use of the modified ICP MS method.

o Samples were collected from the reference wetland (Gordon property) on June 16, 2010. The reference wetland closely resembles the wetlands located at the site from both a physical and taxon distribution perspective. The concern with collection of sufficient benthic tissue sample mass was also recognized at the reference wetland. The project team discussed viable alternatives and options and agreed that the three reference area wetland stations could be composited into one sample for the tissue analysis.

• Possible changes to the field sampling locations were also discussed during the meeting. The project team then adjourned into the field so that the Sediment Quality Triad (SQT) sample locations could be discussed in further detail. The following topics were discussed in the field:

2 of 4

________________________________ EHSs ~~eEi~L!ie


o Sample location SQT -06 was moved to the north due to the lack of standing water in the initially proposed location.

o The SQT -04 sample location was reviewed in the field and the project team discussed moving the sampling location to the west near an area of running water. The group agreed the sample would remain where it was initially proposed in order to better correlate the historical copper and mercury results.

o During sediment sample collection at the SQT-03 location the field technicians noted a sheen and an odor in the sediment (described as a “hydrocarbon like” odor). The project team visited this location and field technicians pulled a macro core sample in the same area; the group observed the sheen and odor. The project team discussed concerns that hydrocarbons may be present in high concentrations and that this could skew the SQT test results by adding an additional stressor. The group agreed to collect a characterization sample (analyzed for semi volatile and volatile organics, sulfide and sulfate by EPA approved methods and fractionated total petroleum hydrocarbons by the Massachusetts method). The results would then be discussed on a conference call with NYSDEC and if the sample contains elevated constituents that could confound the SQT analysis; then the project team and NYSDEC would explore a possible alternative sample location. The project team and NYSDEC identified a viable alternative sample location at sample location 22-31- 1.0. If the characterization results are not elevated the SQT-03 sample will be collected as originally planned. Mary Jo Crance asked that she be contacted (716-989-9655) as soon as the results are available to discuss the sample location decision. Preliminary analytical results from the characterization sample were received and discussed with the Mary Jo Crance on June 23, 2010. Due to concerns over skewing the SQT results and field staff health and safety associated with sample collection in this area (the approved project health and safety plan does not specifically take petroleum hydrocarbons and associated semi volatile and volatile organics into account) all parties agreed to move the SQT sample outside the area with the noted sheen but within the general vicinity of the original SQT-03 location. The sample was collected per the NYSDEC’s direction on June 23, 2010.

Mercury Speciation

• Following completion of the field inspection, the project team adjourned back to the meeting room and commenced discussion on the November 2009 Mercury Speciation report. The project team agreed that the weight of evidence indicates that elemental mercury is not present at the site. It was then discussed that there are no viable methods currently available to decisively distinguish between elemental and organic mercury species. Paul Patel noted that he plans to develop a technical memorandum that provides guidance for how to address mercury issues on NYSDEC sites, and that the method would be similar to the approach utilized at the Port Ewen site. Review and approval of this memorandum by NYSDEC senior management will be required which may be delayed due to a current re-structuring effort inside the agency. Ashland and Dyno Nobel offered to provide a detailed discussion of the investigation that has been completed at the Port Ewen site in order to assist Paul in completing his memorandum.

3 of 4

________________________________ EHSs ~~eEi~L!ie


4 of 4

Regulatory Changes

• November 4, 2009 DER-10 Technical Guidance has been finalized. Groundwater

• The project team agreed that a monitored natural attenuation path was an acceptable long-term end goal for the groundwater issues at the site. Monitoring of the wells will continue under the current program and will be reviewed in the future to assess if the monitoring program can be more effectively and efficiently executed .

Vapor Intrusion

• Dyno Nobel has implemented a plan to reduce the product lines and operations at the site. The plug mold machine building will likely become obsolete in the next 1-2 years. The project team agreed that if the use of the building changes the vapor intrusion program could be re-evaluated. The NYSDEC indicated that the vapor intrusion sampling could be discontinued if:

o The building was made uninhabitable, which includes disconnecting the utilities and securing all access points to the structure,

o Provide regular updates to the NYSDEC that the building use has not changed over time; and

o The plan will ultimately need approval from the Department of Health as well as NYSDEC.

• The project team agreed that future groundwater monitoring reports will include standard language that describes the current and anticipated use of the property. This will address the NYSDEC requirement for regular updates on the plug mold machine building.

Communication and Reporting

• The project team agreed to the following: o The June FWIA analytical data will be provided to the NYSDEC with a

description of the results but with no interpretation, i.e., a factual report. o The project team and NYSDEC will meet in late August to discuss the results of

the first round of ecological samples and to address data gaps or redundancies prior to mobilizing to the field to complete the fall sampling event.

o The project team will meet in November to discuss the results of FWIA Step IIC investigation and to collaboratively interpret and define the data. The goal of the meeting will be to develop consensus on the data interpretation and conclusions of the FWIA Step IIC investigation report.

________________________________ EHSs ~~eEi~L!ie

I

I

Comp/}!Jf _ {)7J-() ~>]_

'z\\S Sv~ t ~ Oy11t? Nr71J~ / SrlS ~ffu/t ~ ),(a-c}__ ::c..__c:-

JJ Y s t>eC ~ Y5 p!3C

;UY'S [)LC

Nigel Goulding � 4796 Brittonhurst Drive, Hilliard, Ohio 43026

412-977-4474 � [email protected] � www.ehs-support.com

MEMO

To: Mary Jo Crance - NYSDEC

From: Nigel Goulding - EHS Support Corp

CC: John Hoffman - Ashland

Neal Olsen - Dyno Nobel

Fred Jardinico - Dyno Nobel

Andrew Patz – EHS Support Corporation

Gary Long – URS

Date: July 9, 2010

Re: Summary of the SQT-3 Characterization Sample Results

Based on the analytical testing completed there appears to be elevated concentrations of

petroleum hydrocarbons within sample PE-SQT-SD-03. From observations in the field, the

sample comprised a combination of organic matter (fibrous in nature) and some silts.

Hydrocarbon sheens were noted in portions of the sample but there was considerable variability

through the test cores collected which may contribute to the variability in analytical responses

between the different test methods employed.

The following analytical tests were completed on the core samples by Test America:

• Volatile Organic Compounds by method SW846 8260B (Test America Pittsburgh PA)

• Semi-volatile Organic Compounds by method SW846 8270C (Test America Pittsburgh

PA)

• Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons by the Massachusetts Department Of

Environmental Protection (MADEP) method (Test America Westfield MA).

The following Volatile Organic Compounds were detected in the samples tested:

• Carbon disulfide at 4.6J ug/kg

• 1,2,4 Trichlorobenzene at 7.4J ug/kg

• Toluene at 7.9 J ug/kg

No semi-volatile organic compounds were detected in the 8270B analysis however the detection

limits were elevated in the test (650ug/kg to 17,000 ug/kg). Due to the presence of other (non-

specific) petroleum hydrocarbons in the sample, a 10 fold dilution was likely used and this

provided the elevated detection limits.

Mary Jo Crance

Port Ewen SQT 3 Sample

July 9, 2010

2 of 2

The presence of other petroleum hydrocarbon compounds was confirmed by the EPH analysis

conducted on the sample. Elevated concentrations of aromatic and aliphatic compounds were

detected, with the presence of aromatic compounds (post silica gel) indicating that these

compounds are likely petrogenic in nature. C11- C22 aromatic’s (comprising of PAHs and other

undefined ring structures) were detected at a combined concentration of 2,600 mg/kg. Heavy

end aliphatic compounds were also detected at high concentrations (13,000 mg/kg).

Based on the chromatogram provided by Test America, these petroleum hydrocarbons cannot be

attributed to a defined petroleum source but appear to be heavily weathered in nature and within

a range consistent with heating oils and/or emoleum. A more detailed forensic analysis would be

needed to better identify the possible type of petroleum product detected.

Considering the testing results discussed, petroleum hydrocarbon compounds are present at high

concentrations within the sample collected at PE-SQT-SD-03. The majority of these petroleum

hydrocarbons are not identifiable in the more detailed 8260 and 8270 analytical methods and are

typically qualified as ‘unresolved contaminant mass’. While specific compounds cannot be

attributed to this peak in the GC trace, these compounds will likely provide some additional

stress to the ecological receptors, either directly via their toxicity and/or indirectly through

secondary effects associated with the highly reducing conditions and the production of sulfides.

The elevated concentrations of sulfides detected in this sample likely reflects these induced

reducing conditions.

TESTAMERICA LABORATORIES, INC.TESTAMERICA LABORATORIES, INC.

PRELIMINARY DATA SUMMARYPRELIMINARY DATA SUMMARY

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The results shown below may still require additional laboratory review and are subject tochange. Actions taken based on these results are the responsibility of the data user.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

URS CorporationURS Corporation PAGE 1Lot #:Lot #: C0F180425 URS Ashland Port Ewen Date Reported:Date Reported: 6/28/10

Project Number: URS PORT EWENREPORTING ANALYTICAL

PARAMETER______________________________ RESULT__________ LIMIT__________ UNITS__________ METHOD_________________

Client Sample ID:Client Sample ID: PE-SQT-SD-03PE-SQT-SD-03 Sample #: 001 Date Sampled: 06/17/10 16:30 Date Received: 06/18/10 Matrix: SOLID

ReviewedVolatile Organics by GC/MSAcetone ND 98 ug/kg SW846 8260BBenzene ND 24 ug/kg SW846 8260BBromodichloromethane ND 24 ug/kg SW846 8260BBromoform ND 24 ug/kg SW846 8260BBromomethane ND 24 ug/kg SW846 8260B2-Butanone ND 24 ug/kg SW846 8260BCarbon disulfideCarbon disulfide 4.6 J4.6 J 2424 ug/kgug/kg SW846 8260BSW846 8260B Carbon tetrachloride ND 24 ug/kg SW846 8260BChlorobenzene ND 24 ug/kg SW846 8260BChloroethane ND 24 ug/kg SW846 8260BChloroform ND 24 ug/kg SW846 8260BChloromethane ND 24 ug/kg SW846 8260BCyclohexane ND 24 ug/kg SW846 8260BDibromochloromethane ND 24 ug/kg SW846 8260B1,2-Dibromo-3-chloro- ND 24 ug/kg SW846 8260Bpropane

1,2-Dibromoethane ND 24 ug/kg SW846 8260B1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 24 ug/kg SW846 8260B1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 24 ug/kg SW846 8260B1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 24 ug/kg SW846 8260BDichlorodifluoromethane ND 24 ug/kg SW846 8260B1,1-Dichloroethane ND 24 ug/kg SW846 8260B1,2-Dichloroethane ND 24 ug/kg SW846 8260B1,1-Dichloroethene ND 24 ug/kg SW846 8260Bcis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 24 ug/kg SW846 8260Btrans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 24 ug/kg SW846 8260B1,2-Dichloropropane ND 24 ug/kg SW846 8260Bcis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 24 ug/kg SW846 8260Btrans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 24 ug/kg SW846 8260BEthylbenzene ND 24 ug/kg SW846 8260B2-Hexanone ND 24 ug/kg SW846 8260BIsopropylbenzene ND 24 ug/kg SW846 8260BMethyl acetate ND 24 ug/kg SW846 8260BMethylene chloride ND 24 ug/kg SW846 8260BMethylcyclohexane ND 24 ug/kg SW846 8260B4-Methyl-2-pentanone ND 24 ug/kg SW846 8260BMethyl tert-butyl ether ND 24 ug/kg SW846 8260B

(Continued on next page)

TestAmerica Laboratories, Inc.








ReviewedVolatile Organics by GC/MSStyrene ND 24 ug/kg SW846 8260B1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 24 ug/kg SW846 8260B1,2,4-Trichloro-1,2,4-Trichloro- 7.4 J7.4 J 2424 ug/kgug/kg SW846 8260BSW846 8260B benzenebenzene

Tetrachloroethene ND 24 ug/kg SW846 8260B1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 24 ug/kg SW846 8260B1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 24 ug/kg SW846 8260BTrichloroethene ND 24 ug/kg SW846 8260BTrichlorofluoromethane ND 24 ug/kg SW846 8260B1,1,2-Trichloro- ND 24 ug/kg SW846 8260B1,2,2-trifluoroethane

TolueneToluene 7.9 J7.9 J 2424 ug/kgug/kg SW846 8260BSW846 8260B Vinyl chloride ND 24 ug/kg SW846 8260BXylenes (total) ND 73 ug/kg SW846 8260B

Results and reporting limits have been adjusted for dry weight.

J Estimated result. Result is less than RL.

ReviewedSemivolatile Organic Compounds by GC/MSAcenaphthene ND 650 ug/kg SW846 8270CAcenaphthylene ND 650 ug/kg SW846 8270CAcetophenone ND 3200 ug/kg SW846 8270CAnthracene ND 650 ug/kg SW846 8270CAtrazine ND 3200 ug/kg SW846 8270CBenzo(a)anthracene ND 650 ug/kg SW846 8270CBenzo(a)pyrene ND 650 ug/kg SW846 8270CBenzo(b)fluoranthene ND 650 ug/kg SW846 8270CBenzo(ghi)perylene ND 650 ug/kg SW846 8270CBenzo(k)fluoranthene ND 650 ug/kg SW846 8270CBenzaldehyde ND 3200 ug/kg SW846 8270C1,1'-Biphenyl ND 3200 ug/kg SW846 8270Cbis(2-Chloroethoxy) ND 3200 ug/kg SW846 8270Cmethane

bis(2-Chloroethyl)- ND 650 ug/kg SW846 8270Cether

bis(2-Ethylhexyl) ND 6500 ug/kg SW846 8270Cphthalate










ReviewedSemivolatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS4-Bromophenyl phenyl ND 3200 ug/kg SW846 8270Cether

Butyl benzyl phthalate ND 3200 ug/kg SW846 8270CCaprolactam ND 17000 ug/kg SW846 8270CCarbazole ND 650 ug/kg SW846 8270C4-Chloroaniline ND 3200 ug/kg SW846 8270C4-Chloro-3-methylphenol ND 3200 ug/kg SW846 8270C2-Chloronaphthalene ND 650 ug/kg SW846 8270C2-Chlorophenol ND 3200 ug/kg SW846 8270C4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ND 3200 ug/kg SW846 8270Cether

Chrysene ND 650 ug/kg SW846 8270CDibenz(a,h)anthracene ND 650 ug/kg SW846 8270CDibenzofuran ND 3200 ug/kg SW846 8270C3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine ND 3200 ug/kg SW846 8270C2,4-Dichlorophenol ND 650 ug/kg SW846 8270CDiethyl phthalate ND 3200 ug/kg SW846 8270C2,4-Dimethylphenol ND 3200 ug/kg SW846 8270CDimethyl phthalate ND 3200 ug/kg SW846 8270CDi-n-butyl phthalate ND 3200 ug/kg SW846 8270C4,6-Dinitro- ND 17000 ug/kg SW846 8270C2-methylphenol

2,4-Dinitrophenol ND 17000 ug/kg SW846 8270C2,4-Dinitrotoluene ND 3200 ug/kg SW846 8270C2,6-Dinitrotoluene ND 3200 ug/kg SW846 8270CDi-n-octyl phthalate ND 3200 ug/kg SW846 8270CFluoranthene ND 650 ug/kg SW846 8270CFluorene ND 650 ug/kg SW846 8270CHexachlorobenzene ND 650 ug/kg SW846 8270CHexachlorobutadiene ND 650 ug/kg SW846 8270CHexachlorocyclopenta- ND 3200 ug/kg SW846 8270Cdiene

Hexachloroethane ND 3200 ug/kg SW846 8270CIndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ND 650 ug/kg SW846 8270CIsophorone ND 3200 ug/kg SW846 8270C2-Methylnaphthalene ND 650 ug/kg SW846 8270C2-Methylphenol ND 3200 ug/kg SW846 8270C










ReviewedSemivolatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS4-Methylphenol ND 3200 ug/kg SW846 8270CNaphthalene ND 650 ug/kg SW846 8270C2-Nitroaniline ND 17000 ug/kg SW846 8270C3-Nitroaniline ND 17000 ug/kg SW846 8270C4-Nitroaniline ND 17000 ug/kg SW846 8270CNitrobenzene ND 6500 ug/kg SW846 8270C2-Nitrophenol ND 3200 ug/kg SW846 8270C4-Nitrophenol ND 17000 ug/kg SW846 8270CN-Nitrosodi-n-propyl- ND 650 ug/kg SW846 8270Camine

N-Nitrosodiphenylamine ND 3200 ug/kg SW846 8270C2,2'-oxybis ND 650 ug/kg SW846 8270C(1-Chloropropane)

Pentachlorophenol ND 3200 ug/kg SW846 8270CPhenanthrene ND 650 ug/kg SW846 8270CPhenol ND 650 ug/kg SW846 8270CPyrene ND 650 ug/kg SW846 8270C2,4,5-Trichloro- ND 3200 ug/kg SW846 8270Cphenol

2,4,6-Trichloro- ND 3200 ug/kg SW846 8270Cphenol


ReviewedInorganic AnalysisSulfateSulfate 81108110 48.848.8 mg/kgmg/kg SW846 9056ASW846 9056A Total Residue asTotal Residue as 20.520.5 1.01.0 %% SM20 2540GSM20 2540G Percent SolidsPercent Solids

Sulfides, TotalSulfides, Total 823823 146146 mg/kgmg/kg SW846 9030B/9034SW846 9030B/9034 9030B/90349030B/9034



Data File; \\PITSVR06\D\ohem\731+i\V06211.0+b\V0621029+D

Date; 21-JUN-2010 19;55

Client ID; PE-SQT-SD-03 Sample Info; COF180425-001 X4 6/21/10 soil(0172057)8270o Volume Injected (ul); 2+0

Column phase; DB5-HS

Instrument; 731+i

Operator; 003200

Column diameter; 0+32

\\PITSVR06\D\ohem\731+i\V062110+b\V0621029+D

8.2

0.0 7.8 7.6 7.4

7.2 7.0 6.8

6.6 6.4 6.2

6+0 5.8 5.6 5.4 5.2 5.0 4.8 4.6

,,.... 4+4

"" 4+2~ ' 0

'" X 4+0~ 3+8~

::-- 3+6~

3+4~ 3+2~ 3+0~ 2+8~ 2+6~ 2+4~ 2+2~ 2+0~ 1+8~ 1+6~ 1+4~ 1+2~ 1+0~ 0+8~ 0.6j 0+4~ 0+2~

g • -" ._ 0 C 0 ,

l '

" " ' • Cv . .,, 7 N' -,, C • , •c - -"• O ON C CC • o• =--<> ~~.!:O

10 Ot.. .... t.. •rtO 00 A .... ,,_. ' -" 0C 7 0 JI_) ...... 0...1 --:-IA IN LI

I ''1 '" '

"' I • N C

i ¥

l -;; -"

l

-~ • -" ._ -" 0

g

i

~

" '

i • 0 <I

'

-._.._~ ____ ,.,....)L...11 /JLJLJLJL-.,L.__L..Ji...-.,-.-1 2 3 4····5····12,··· 7

Hin

-0

t 0 E 0 C -"

~ Jr v

'" '

0

'" " ' • C • C -" .., C m C • ;f_

'

8 •

v '" 1' "' <

1'0

~ ~ • • "' C -" u

1:1.

'" '" " ' • C • "' C • CL

'

Page 6

12 B

ANALYTICAL REPORT

Job Number: 360-28814-1

Job Description: Laboratory Analysis

For:TestAmerica Laboratories, Inc.

301 Alpha DriveRIDC Park

Pittsburgh, PA 15238

Attention: Ms. Carrie Gamber

_____________________________________________

Approved for release.Joe ChimiReport Production Representative6/25/10 3:49 PM

Designee forLisa A WorthingtonProject Manager II

[email protected]/25/2010

Results relate only to the items tested and the sample(s) as received by the laboratory. The test results in this reportmeet all NELAC requirements for accredited parameters, exceptions are noted in this report. Pursuant to NELAC, thisreport may not be reproduced except in full, and with written approval from the laboratory. TestAmerica WestfieldCertifications and Approvals: MADEP MA014, RIDOH57, CTDPH 0494, VT DECWSD, NH DES 2539, NELAP FLE87912 TOX, NELAP NJ MA008 TOX, NELAP NY 10843, NY ELAP 10843, North Carolina 647, NELAP PA 68-04386.Field sampling is performed under SOPs WE-FLD-001 and WE-FLD-002.


TestAmerica Westfield Westfield Executive Park, 53 Southampton Road, Westfield, MA 01085

Tel (413) 572-4000 Fax (413) 572-3707 www.testamericainc.com

Page 1 of 6

Test America THE LEADER IN ENVIRON MENTAL TESTING

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.testamericainc.com

METHOD SUMMARY

Job Number: 360-28814-1Client: TestAmerica Laboratories, Inc.

Preparation MethodMethodLab LocationDescription

Matrix: Solid

MA DEP MA-EPHMassachusetts - Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (GC) TAL WFD

SW846 3546TAL WFDMicrowave Extraction

EPA MoisturePercent Moisture TAL WFD

Lab References:

TAL WFD = TestAmerica Westfield

Method References:

EPA = US Environmental Protection Agency

MA DEP = Massachusetts Department Of Environmental Protection

SW846 = "Test Methods For Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods", Third Edition, November 1986 And Its Updates.

TestAmerica Westfield

Page 2 of 6

METHOD / ANALYST SUMMARY

Client: TestAmerica Laboratories, Inc. Job Number: 360-28814-1

Method Analyst Analyst ID

Sadowski, Scott SSMA DEP MA-EPH

Kim, Young Ran R YRKEPA Moisture


Page 3 of 6

SAMPLE SUMMARY


Client Sample IDLab Sample ID Client Matrix

Date/Time

Sampled

Date/Time

Received

06/17/2010 1630 06/18/2010 1020PE-SQT-SD-03360-28814-1 Solid


Page 4 of 6

Ms. Carrie Gamber


301 Alpha Drive

RIDC Park

Pittsburgh, PA 15238

Job Number: 360-28814-1

Client Sample ID:

Analyte Result/Qualifier Unit Dilution

06/18/2010 1020

06/17/2010 1630

Date Received:

Date Sampled:

Lab Sample ID:

PE-SQT-SD-03

RL

19Percent Solids:

Client Matrix: Solid

360-28814-1

Method: MA-EPH Date Analyzed: 06/24/2010 0016

Prep Method: 3546 Date Prepared: 06/23/2010 1000

Acenaphthene ND mg/Kg 10 2.0

Acenaphthylene ND mg/Kg 10 2.0

Anthracene ND mg/Kg 10 2.0

Benzo[a]anthracene ND mg/Kg 10 2.0

Benzo[a]pyrene ND mg/Kg 10 2.0

Benzo[b]fluoranthene ND mg/Kg 10 2.0

Benzo[g,h,i]perylene ND mg/Kg 10 2.0

Benzo[k]fluoranthene ND mg/Kg 10 2.0

Chrysene ND mg/Kg 10 2.0

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ND mg/Kg 10 2.0

Fluoranthene ND mg/Kg 10 2.0

Fluorene ND mg/Kg 10 2.0

Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene ND mg/Kg 10 2.0

2-Methylnaphthalene ND mg/Kg 10 2.0

Naphthalene ND mg/Kg 10 2.0

Phenanthrene ND mg/Kg 10 2.0

Pyrene ND mg/Kg 10 2.0

C11-C22 Aromatics (unadjusted) 2600 mg/Kg 100 2.0

C11-C22 Aromatics (Adjusted) 2600 mg/Kg 100 2.0

C19-C36 Aliphatics 13000 mg/Kg 100 2.0

C9-C18 Aliphatics 580 mg/Kg 100 2.0

Total EPH 16000 mg/Kg 100 2.0

Surrogate Acceptance Limits

40 - 14098 %2-Bromonaphthalene

40 - 140107 %2-Fluorobiphenyl

40 - 14061 %o-Terphenyl

40 - 14060 %1-Chlorooctadecane

Method: Moisture Date Analyzed: 06/21/2010 1407

Percent Moisture 81 % 1.0 1.0

Page 5 of 6

Login Sample Receipt Check List


Login Number: 28814

Question T / F/ NA Comment

Creator: Cagan, Marissa

List Source: TestAmerica Westfield

List Number: 1

Radioactivity either was not measured or, if measured, is at or below

background

N/A

The cooler's custody seal, if present, is intact. True

The cooler or samples do not appear to have been compromised or

tampered with.

True

Samples were received on ice. True

Cooler Temperature is acceptable. True 3.8C

Cooler Temperature is recorded. True

COC is present. True

COC is filled out in ink and legible. True

COC is filled out with all pertinent information. True

There are no discrepancies between the sample IDs on the containers and

the COC.

True

Samples are received within Holding Time. True

Sample containers have legible labels. True

Containers are not broken or leaking. True

Sample collection date/times are provided. True

Appropriate sample containers are used. True

Sample bottles are completely filled. True

There is sufficient vol. for all requested analyses, incl. any requested

MS/MSDs

True

VOA sample vials do not have headspace or bubble is <6mm (1/4") in

diameter.

N/A

If necessary, staff have been informed of any short hold time or quick TAT

needs

True

Multiphasic samples are not present. True

Samples do not require splitting or compositing. True

Is the Field Sampler's name present on COC? True

Sample Preservation Verified True

TestAmerica WestfieldPage 6 of 6


MEMO

To: Paul Patel - NYSDEC Mary Jo Crance - NYSDEC Dan Evans - NYSDEC

From: Andrew Patz - EHS Support Corp

CC: John Hoffman - Ashland Neal Olsen - Dyno Nobel Fred Jardinico - Dyno Nobel Gary Long - URS

Date: October 8, 2010

Re: Summary of the September 15, 2010 Meeting

We appreciate the opportunity to meet with you, Mary Jo Crance, and Dan Evans to discuss the preliminary data generated from the recent Fish and Wildlife Impact Analysis (FWIA) field sampling efforts at Dyno Nobel’s Port Ewen, New York facility. A summary of our September 15, 2010 discussions is provided below. September 15, 2010 Project Meeting The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and Ashland/ Dyno Nobel (the project team) held a project update meeting on September 15, 2010 at the NYSDEC offices in Albany, New York. The meeting focused on a collaborative review of the preliminary results of the ongoing FWIA effort as well as the data interpretation techniques that will be utilized to better understand the field results. Attendees/ Project Team: Paul Patel – NYSDEC Mary Jo Crance- NYSDEC Dan Evans - NYSDEC John Hoffman – Ashland Fred Jardinico – Dyno Nobel Gary Long – URS Nigel Goulding – EHS Support Corp Andrew Patz - EHS Support Corp

Mr. Paul Patel September 15, 2010 Meeting October 8, 2010

Ecological Assessment Update The project team reviewed the initial results from the June 2010 sediment quality triad (SQT) sampling; the following items were discussed:

• Surface water sampling o No exceedances of the NYSDEC surface water quality standards (SWQS) were

noted in the six filtered samples collected at the site.

• Sediment chemistry results o Generally, the highest concentrations of metals were noted in or near solid waste

management unit (SWMU) 22. o The proposed remedial foot print around SWMU 22 tracks well with the

identified impacts. o Location SQT 8, the down gradient sediment sampling location, contained

elevated mercury and copper concentrations. Historic results in the vicinity of this location contained much lower

concentrations of mercury and copper. The sample was collected in a fine grained depositional environment. The project team agreed additional review is needed to better understand

the implications of this result.

• Preliminary sediment toxicity testing results o The SQT 3 location (which was noted to contain and oil like sheen during sample

collection efforts in June 2010), was determined to be acutely toxic and was therefore noted as an outlier. The project team agreed additional review of this area is needed, however its location inside the proposed remedial footprint was also noted.

o Mercury concentrations do not appear to have a direct correlation to toxicity. Mary Jo Crance indicated this result is somewhat expected and toxicity is not the primary assessment endpoint she is interested in for determining mercury impact to the benthic community; her concerns are focused on bioaccumulation.

o Two metals, lead and selenium, indicate a possible correlation between sediment concentration and toxicity. These metals were typically collocated in the field samples.

The project team agreed further evaluation of the lead and selenium relationship is needed to determine the specific risk driver.

The team will review the site geochemistry, fraction of organic carbon, soil type, acidity, etc as part of this review.

• Benthic community results

o URS noted that basic benthic community metrics are generally consistent with the preliminary results of the sediment toxicity testing, particularly at the extremes (e.g., no impacts observed and impacts observed); the project team agreed that the benthic community metrics were a line of evidence in the broader weight of evidence approach.

2 of 5

________________________________ EHSs ~~eEi~L!ie


o URS noted the difference between benthic habitats at SQT stations, specifically locations that were predominantly open water with depositional sediments while others were in Phragmites-dominated habitats with organic root mat substrates. Mary Jo Crance asked that the physical habitat characteristics of each station be noted in the report.

o The project team discussed additional data evaluation techniques- including the potential use of multivariate analysis to better assess the SQT data.

• Fish tissue results

o Preliminary results of the fish tissue analysis indicate limited risk is posed from the site constituents to this exposure pathway, with the possible exception of selenium; additional evaluation of wildlife ingestion pathways through dose rate modeling is needed to further assess risk to piscivores potentially foraging in the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex.

o Mary Jo Crance expressed concern over the sample size of fish and the elevated mercury concentrations noted in station SQT 8. URS indicated that the forage fish were represented in each reach sampled and that multiple efforts were made to collect piscivorous fish samples however – a limited number of individuals were present in the reaches sampled, particularly at the site and upstream of the site.

o Mary Jo Crance suggested that additional fish tissue sampling be completed downstream of SQT 8 in order to determine if mercury concentrations in fish tissue are elevated relative to fish tissue samples from the reach downstream of SQT 8. Further sediment sampling downstream of SQT 8 was also requested to identify the downstream extent of elevated mercury concentrations.

o The team agreed to reconvene via conference call during the week of September 20 to discuss the viability of sampling downstream of SQT 8 and potential sample locations.

• Benthic invertebrate tissue results o URS noted a higher proportion of total mercury as inorganic (non-methylated)

mercury in benthic invertebrate tissue - potentially due to sediment in the gut tract of the non-depurated tissue samples.

o Methyl mercury results in all but one benthic invertebrate tissue sample were below the reference value.

o Other metals showed a general relationship of tissue accumulation with increasing sediment concentration – concentrations in tissues from site samples were consistently greater than concentrations in tissues from reference locations

o Additional evaluation of wildlife ingestion pathways through dose rate modeling is needed to further assess risk to invertivores potentially foraging in the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex.

• SWMU 35 (The Stone Fence Dump)

o Surface Samples collected at the toe of the dump area indicate metals concentrations are essentially equivalent to background concentrations in the region.

3 of 5

________________________________ EHSs ~~eEi~L!ie


• Site drainage sediment characterization

o Elevated mercury concentrations were noted at discrete depths in the two site drainage areas.

o There are no obvious patterns in the mercury concentrations in the site drainage areas, i.e., no horizontal or vertical correlation between sample locations could be determined from the limited number of collected samples. The group agreed that the primary source of mercury in the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex is associated with the SMWU1/ 22 however, the site drainages are a relatively minor mercury contributor.

• Bioaccumulation results o Earthworms on the southern portion of the site (Grid S-3) contained the higher

concentrations of mercury relative to concentrations of mercury in soil. o Additional evaluation of wildlife ingestion pathways through dose rate modeling

is needed to further assess risk to vermivores (e.g., shrew and robin) potentially foraging in the Active Plant

o Next steps in understanding the bioaccumulation results will be to evaluate the differences noticed between worm tissue samples collected in the northern and southern portions of the site.

One possible factor is the difference in soil type between the two areas. • Determine if geochemistry is impacting bioavailability.

• Next steps:

o As the dose rate models for wildlife receptors are developed, the NYSDEC will be closely involved in order to ensure key model assumptions are understood and agreed to by the project team prior to initiating the model runs.

o The team agreed that because the site samples were not depurated, the incidental sediment/soil ingestion parameter would not be included in dose rate models; this parameter will be removed to avoid double counting of sediment/soil present in the gut tract of non-depurated tissue samples.

o The team agreed selenium would be closely evaluated due to its low toxicity reference value (TRV).

o Mary Jo Crance indicated the NYSDEC derives TRVs from EPA approved databases. Specifically when identifying a no observable adverse effects level (NOAEL) the NYSDEC requires multiple references. Mary Jo will work with Tim Sinnot (NYSDEC toxicologist) to determine the number of species that will need to be represented in the NOAEL assessment and provide feedback to the project team.

o The project team will work closely in developing the strategy for developing TRVs to ensure both NYSDEC and Dyno Nobel/Ashland are in agreement with the approach.

4 of 5

________________________________ EHSs ~~eEi~L!ie


5 of 5

o A follow up call was held on September 29, 2010 to discuss further evaluation of the mercury concentrations downstream of SQT 8. The project team agreed to the following:

Four (4) sediment samples will be collected down gradient of SQT 8, with the most northerly sample being collected just before where the stream crosses Mountain View Road.

Sample locations will be targeted to low energy, depositional areas that contain fine-grained sediments. Final sample locations will be determined based on field observations and communicated to the NYSDEC.

Sediment samples will be collected from the 0-1 foot below ground (bgs) surface interval as well as from the 1-2 foot bgs interval.

The analytical methods and constituents reported will be consistent with the other SQT stations.

The samples will be collected as part of the fall SQT sampling event scheduled for mid October, pending site access approval by the property owner. If access is not granted an alternative sampling plan will be developed and discussed with the NYSDEC.

The NYSDEC team will be notified via email over the next week as to the final field schedule.

Fish tissue sampling locations will be determined based on the results of the proposed sediment samples. Tissue sampling will be completed in June of 2011 to correlate with the fish tissue samples collected in June of 2010.

• Communication and reporting

• The project team agreed to the following: o The fall sampling effort scope will be adjusted based on the project team

discussions and decisions during the week of September 20, 2010. o A meeting will be held in February 2011 when the fall sampling results have

been received to develop consensus on the data interpretation and conclusions of the FWIA Step IIC investigation report.

________________________________ EHSs ~~eEi~L!ie

l? d ~ v---c-aj ~, +-c_

/IJtSl;xZC ,rn~-±i'tv-t ~~'if?_ I S-1 "ZDtO _

__ ,A:th..Nos5 · -- -----~-

'I --___ L illAJYJ_~ ----

-_ ---~!1

_,671\W'N- Jl_jz_ __ 4b/ANJ) ~ -/'JdJd Z~ __ ___,~~ (/a.av.- ___ _f.)j5_j)_E_C__ ~FL,._) Mf. r-- ~

_. ~~l/4/d ~~ #'__15-_/)!?C-7" D5trA P _ _

---~(~lJ:-::r- _ £JjS 5----y_fp/i' __ .:)blf~ 1/4~?(~ _ fil/J/_g_11/ I/le- __ _

~lffil ·ThJ(D/)Jtco D1JUO /.k;JsEL __ --- ,~fiian ) M~--c._ ;!!__:::>_..J..thq';,_L_.J.---

G1re-1 L--ot---1b u fZ- s ~=--"----

---~- --

----tt-----------------~- -

-- ----- --

---H------------------- - - -

URS Corporation 335 Commerce Drive; Suite 300 Fort Washington, PA 19034

Telephone: (215) 367-2500 Facsimile: (215) 367-1000

MEMORANDUM

1

TO: Paul Patel – NYSDEC Mary Jo Crance – NYSDEC DFWMR

DATE: January 3, 2011

FROM: Gary Long

PROJECT: Dyno Nobel Port Ewen

Fish and Wildlife Impact Assessment

URS JOB NO.: 19998508 19998509

cc : John Hoffman (Hercules)Fred Jardinico (Dyno Nobel)

Neal Olsen (Dyno Nobel)

SUBJECT: Summary of Downstream Sampling Results Dyno Nobel Port Ewen Facility Port Ewen, New York

Overview

This memorandum presents the results of additional sediment sampling conducted in Plantasie Creek

downstream of the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex at the Dyno Nobel Port Ewen Facility in Port Ewen,

New York. The additional sediment sampling was requested by the New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) during a meeting on September 15, 2010 to review the

preliminary results of the Step IIC Fish and Wildlife Impact Analysis (FWIA) field investigation

conducted in June 2010. NYSDEC requested additional sediment sampling downstream of the SWMU

1/22 Wetland Complex to further characterize the concentrations of metals in sediments, particularly

mercury, that were elevated at station SQT-08, the farthest downstream sediment quality triad (SQT)

station evaluated during the June 2010 FWIA field investigation.

Sampling Approach

Based on discussions with NYSDEC during a conference call on September 29, 2010, four proposed

sediment stations (PE-DNS-SD-01 through PE-DNS-SD-04) were established downstream of the SWMU

1/22 Wetland Complex (see attached figure). Sediment depositional features in the vicinity of the

proposed sampling locations were targeted for sample collection based on field observations. Samples

were collected at each station from 0.0 – 1.0 feet using 2-inch diameter butyrate plastic core liners.

At the request of NYSDEC, collection of deeper sediment intervals was attempted at each station;

however, recovery of deeper material (1.0 -1.5 feet) was only accomplished at station PE-SD-DNS-01.

Samples were analyzed for target metals including cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, selenium, and

zinc; additional sediment characterization included total organic carbon (TOC) content and grain size

distribution. Sampling at PE-DNS-SD-04 was conducted on October 28, 2010; however, the remaining

three stations could not be sampled until November 11, 2010 due to coordination issues with the

property owner to gain access to the stream.

Summary of Results

Analytical results of the downstream sediment sampling are presented in Table 1 and posted on the

attached figure. For reference, sample results are presented relative to NYSDEC sediment criteria for

metals (NYSDEC 1999). Sample results exceeding the lowest effect level (LEL) are presented in bold;

results exceeding the severe effects level (SEL) are shaded and bold.

2

The results of the downstream sediment sampling indicate elevated concentrations of metals,

particularly copper and mercury, in the surface interval at the first two downstream stations (PE-DNS-

SD-01 and PE-DNS-SD-02). The deeper sediment interval at PE-DNS-SD-01 generally contained

comparable concentrations to the surface interval for most metals, with the exception of mercury,

which was elevated in the deeper interval relative to the surface interval. Concentrations of metals at

PE-DNS-SD-01 and PE-DNS-SD-02 were generally consistent with concentrations observed in the surface

interval at station SQT-08. Concentrations of metals, particularly copper and mercury, were

substantially lower in sediments at downstream stations PE-DNS-SD-03 and PE-DNS-SD-04 relative to

upstream stations.

The distribution of sediment metals in depositional areas downstream of the SWMU 1/22 Wetland

Complex is generally consistent with channel morphology and flow conditions. As illustrated in Photos

1 and 2 of the attached photographic log, the reach from SQT-08 to PE-DNS-SD-02 is characterized by a

broad channel with limited stream velocity that is consistent with past beaver activity that impeded

stream flow. As a result of limited flow, this reach represents a sediment depositional zone where

fine-grained sediments have accumulated over time. As illustrated in Photos 3 and 4, the stream

channel becomes narrower and the stream banks become more defined at downstream stations PE-

DNS-SD-03 and PE-DNS-SD-04. Channel morphology in this downstream reach becomes more variable,

with small riffle complexes becoming evident. Due to the change in channel morphology, sediment

depositional areas at stations PE-DNS-SD-03 and PE-DNS-SD-04 are limited to the channel margins; the

thickness of sediment depositional features is also reduced at these stations relative to the thickness of

sediment deposition at upstream stations PE-DNS-SD-01 and PE-DNS-SD-02. Greater concentrations of

metals observed at upstream stations PE-DNS-SD-01 and PE-DNS-SD-02 are consistent with a more

extensive zone of sediment deposition immediately downstream of the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex;

lower metals concentrations at stations PE-DNS-SD-03 and PE-DNS-SD-04 are consistent with more

limited sediment deposition downstream.

Reference

NYSDEC. 1999. Technical Guidance for Screening Contaminated Sediments. NYSDEC, Division of Fish,

Wildlife, and Marine Resources. January 25, 1999.

�-

XW

XW

XW

XW

SWMU 26G

Fort Washington, PA


OFF-SITE DOWNSTREAM SAMPLING LOCATIONSFWIA STEP IIC INVESTIGATION

DYNO NOBEL PORT EWEN SITEPORT EWEN, NY

0 100 200 300 40050

Feet

Q:\G

IS_

Data

\HE

RC

UL

ES

\Pro

jects

\Fig

ure

Active P

lan

t A

rea

Sam

ple

Postin

gs.m

xd

DRAFT

Analyte Units 0.0'-1.0' 0.0'-1.0' (DUP)

Cadmium MG/KG 0.78 0.69

Copper MG/KG 179 156

Lead MG/KG 40.6 37


Selenium MG/KG 2 1.9

Zinc MG/KG 185 172


PE-DNS-SD-04


Cadmium MG/KG 0.45

Copper MG/KG 246

Lead MG/KG 25.9

Mercury MG/KG 3.4

Selenium MG/KG 1.3

Zinc MG/KG 89.3

TOC Percent 2.08

PE-DNS-SD-03


Cadmium MG/KG 1.7

Copper MG/KG 1,410

Lead MG/KG 52.3

Mercury MG/KG 25.4

Selenium MG/KG 5.1

Zinc MG/KG 226

TOC Percent 7.75

PE-DNS-SD-02

Analyte Units Result

Cadmium MG/KG 3.3

Copper MG/KG 2,300

Lead MG/KG 128

Mercury MG/KG 24.8

Selenium MG/KG 16.4

Zinc MG/KG 404

TOC Percent 4.93

PE-SQT-08

Analyte Units 0.0'-1.0' 1.0'-1.5'

Cadmium MG/KG 1.9 1

Copper MG/KG 2,020 2,440

Lead MG/KG 77.3 51.4


Selenium MG/KG 7.7 4.3

Zinc MG/KG 270 249


PE-DNS-SD-01

Legend

XW New Sediment Sample Location

�- SQT STATION

BIOLOGICAL TISSUE ANDSOIL SAMPLING GRID

RAILROAD

PERENNIAL STREAM

INTERMITTENT STREAM

SWAMP/MARSH






Note:Bold sample results indicate exceedance of the Lowest Effect Level (LEL)Bold/shaded sample results indicate exceedance of the Severe Effect Level (SEL)

--+-

D

DRAFT TABLE 1

SUMMARY OF DOWNSTREAM SAMPLING RESULTS



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK


Samples

Number of

Detections

Minimum

Detection

Maximum

Detection

PE-DNS-SD-

01(0-1.0)

PE-DNS-SD-

01(1-1.5)

PE-DNS-SD-

02(0-1.0)

PE-DNS-SD-

03(0-1.0)

PE-DNS-SD-

04(0-1.0)

PE-DNS-SD-

04(0-1.0)-DUP

Cadmium mg/kg 5 5 0.45 1.9 1.9 1 1.7 E 0.45 0.78 0.69

Copper mg/kg 5 5 179 2440 2020 2440 1410 246 179 156

Lead mg/kg 5 5 25.9 77.3 77.3 51.4 52.3 25.9 40.6 37

Mercury mg/kg 5 5 1.1 45.3 25.5 45.3 25.4 3.4 1.1 1.4

Selenium mg/kg 5 5 1.3 7.7 7.7 4.3 5.1 E 1.3 2 1.9

Zinc mg/kg 5 5 89.3 270 270 249 226 89.3 185 172

Percent Fines % 5 5 84.1 90.9 84.1 84.1 85.9 87.6 90.9 NA

TOC mg/kg 5 5 20800 77500 71400 42500 77500 20800 48200 34600

Notes:

TOC - Total organic carbon

DUP - Duplicate sample, not included in summary.

E - ICP Serial Dilution percent deviation was greater than 10%

NA - Not analyzed

Bold: Exceeds LEL (See sediment screening criteria table below for LEL values)

Bold/Shade: Exceeds SEL (See sediment screening criteria table below for SEL values)

NYSDEC Sediment Screening Criteria

MetalLEL

(mg/kg)

SEL

(mg/kg)

Cadmium 0.6 9

Copper 16 110

Lead 31 110

Mercury 0.15 1.3

Selenium NS 5a

Zinc 120 270

Notes:

LEL - Lowest Effect Level

SEL - Severe Effect Level

NS - No screening value available

a) Nagpal N.K., L.W. Pommen, and L.G. Swain. 1995. Approved and working criteria for water quality. ISBN 0-7726-2522-0. Water Quality Branch. Ministry of Environment, Land and Parks.

Victoria, British Columbia.

DRAFT

- 1 -

PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG

Client Name:

Dyno Nobel/Ashland

Site Location:

Port Ewen, New York

Project No.

19998508.00002

19998509.00002

Photo No.

1 Date:

11/11/2010

Direction Photo Taken:

S

PE-DNS-SD-01

View: Looking upstream

from sampling location PE-

DNS-SD-01

PE-SQT-08 is approximately

at far extent of view.

Photo No.

2 Date:

11/11/2010


S

PE-DNS-SD-02



DNS-SD-02

- 2 -

PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG

Client Name:

Dyno Nobel/Ashland

Site Location:

Port Ewen, New York

Project No.

19998508.00002

19998509.00002

Photo No.

3 Date:

11/11/2010


S

PE-DNS-SD-03



DNS-SD-03

Photo No.

4 Date:

10/28/2010


S

PE-DNS-SD-04

View: Looking upstream at

sampling location from

bridge at Mountain View

Road


MEMO

To: Paul Patel - NYSDEC - DER Mary Jo Crance - NYSDEC - DFWMR David Crosby- NYSDEC - DER Keith Gronwald- DER Rebecca Quail - NYSDEC - DFWMR

From: Andrew Patz - EHS Support, Inc.

CC: John Hoffman - Ashland Neal Olsen - Dyno Nobel Fred Jardinico - Dyno Nobel Gary Long - URS

Date: March 16, 2011

Re: Summary of the February 24, 2011 Meeting

We appreciate the opportunity to meet with you to discuss the preliminary data generated from the recent Fish and Wildlife Impact Analysis (FWIA) exposure evaluations completed at Dyno Nobel’s Port Ewen, New York facility. A summary of our February 24, 2011 discussions is provided below. February 24, 2011 Project Meeting The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and Ashland/ Dyno Nobel (the project team) held a project update meeting on February 24, 2011 at the NYSDEC offices in Albany, New York. The meeting focused on a collaborative review of the preliminary results of the FWIA Step IIC Data Analysis. The goal of the meeting was to discuss the results of the data analysis as well as the valuation and conclusions in advance of submitting the Step IIC report; in order to gain consensus on the data evaluation and reduce the administrative burden on both parties in reviewing and responding to multiple submissions of the FWIA report. Attendees/ Project Team: Paul Patel - NYSDEC - DER Mary Jo Crance - NYSDEC - DFWMR David Crosby– NYSDEC - DER Keith Gronwald- NYSDEC - DER Rebecca Quail - NYSDEC - DFWMR John Hoffman – Ashland Gary Long – URS

Mr. Paul Patel February 24, 2011 Meeting March 16, 2011

Nigel Goulding – EHS Support, Inc. Andrew Patz - EHS Support, Inc. FWIA Step IIC Data Review The discussion points below are related to the Power Point slides presented during the meeting, the Power Point slide deck is provided on a secure internet site at https://ehs-support.sharefile.com/f/fof6baf5-460a-4b0f-9e35-fa1c3fbef8b8.

• SWMU 1/22 Exposure Evaluation o Fish Community Evaluation

Fish community within the wetland is limited, this may be associated with a lack of open water habitat

• Mary Jo indicated she would typically expect to see up to 6-12 different species in an un-impacted community and she considered the presence of only three species in the study area a lower result than anticipated.

• The group agreed that there is uncertainty in this portion of the evaluation as it is difficult to determine if the limited fish community in the wetland is due to the lack of open water habitat or site specific stressors.

No risk to fish community was observed based on surface water data and tissue residue information for mercury.

• The results are below the NYSDEC surface water standards which are derived to be protective of aquatic life.

• Discussed the conservative approach utilized in the evaluation, as the lowest hardness in the data set was selected for the calculation of hardness-dependent surface water standards.

• Benthic Invertebrate Community Evaluation

o Discussed the evaluation and weighting techniques outlined in the workplan and used in the initial evaluation.

o After the initial discussion of the SQT results, Mary Jo noted that the literature indicates an antagonistic relationship between mercury (Hg) and selenium (Se). She requested we review the literature and provide a discussion of mercury and selenium antagonism in the report.

o Mary Jo also noted the potential interactions of multiple other stressors and suggested that multivariate approaches be considered in the data analysis.

o Mary Jo requested that the Fall 2010 benthic community data be resent to her, she also requested a summary matrix of field parameters in order to compare the Summer and Fall habitat parameters (e.g., water depths) at benthic stations.

o Sediment Quality Triad (SQT) weight-of-evidence (WOE) indicates impacted benthic communities (primarily toxicity testing) at stations with close proximity to SWMU 1 and SWMU 22 (SQT-3, SQT-4, SQT-5, SQT-6)

2 of 5

________________________________ EHSs ~~eEi~L!ie

https://ehs-support.sharefile.com/f/fof6baf5-460a-4b0f-9e35-fa1c3fbef8b8

https://ehs-support.sharefile.com/f/fof6baf5-460a-4b0f-9e35-fa1c3fbef8b8


SQT WOE indicates slight or no impacts at SQT-1, SQT-2, SQT-7, and SQT-8

Mary Jo and Rebecca indicated they need to further review the WOE evaluation to determine if they agree on which stations are impacted.

The group agreed to work collaboratively to develop an evaluation approach during a series of conference calls that will be scheduled in the next 2-3 weeks.

• A conference call schedule and dial in number will be provided during the week of February 28, 2011.

o Sediment toxicity testing results are most consistent with concentration gradients of Se and Pb

Se and lead (Pb) concentrations at SQT stations are highly correlated (R2=0.95)

Rebecca Quail requested that a comparison similar to the evaluation completed for Se and Pb be provided for all of the metals that were analyzed (e.g., correlation matrix).

• Semi-Aquatic Wildlife Exposure Evaluation o Discussed the preliminary model run results and the fact that this information may

change as we continue to refine the model parameters with Mary Jo – however, the results were provided for discussion and range finding purposes.

Mary Jo requested that the width of the corridor around the stream north of the site, utilized to determine the receptor exposure area, be provided.

Mary Jo requested that the exposure evaluation also take into account the site drainage ditches after they cross under the railroad tracks on the eastern portion of the site. The group agreed that this information would be calculated and provided to Mary Jo and that its inclusion in the model discussed during the pending conference calls.

o Greatest risk estimated for tree swallow based on conservative estimate with uncertainty:

Assumes 100% area use due to limited foraging range Estimates of concentration in emergent insect prey – not measured

• Gary indicated he prefers to utilize the aquatic results and apply a correction factor, as all metals concentrations except methyl-mercury, are reduced as the metals bind and remain in the emergent insect’s exoskeleton. Mary Jo agreed.

• David Crosby asked additional questions on the correction factors for several other metals. The correction factors for all of the metal COCs will be provided to the NYSDEC.

o Potential risk to other receptors are negligible to low based on area use-adjusted doses for the current model.

• Active Plant Area Exposure Evaluation o Terrestrial Wildlife Exposure Evaluation

Discussed the preliminary model run results and the fact that this information may change as we continue to refine the model parameters

3 of 5

________________________________ EHSs ~~eEi~L!ie


with Mary Jo – however, the results were provided for discussion and range finding purposes.

Mary Jo indicated that the group will have additional discussions on the home range of certain receptors as well as the No Observable Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) and Lowest Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) does utilized for certain metals.

o Overall- Wildlife risk associated with elevated selenium concentrations in earthworms and small mammal tissues

o Risks to long-ranging birds (hawk) and mammals (fox) are low to moderate for selenium, but still exceed the estimated LOAEL.

o For metals other than selenium, risks to long-ranging receptors are negligible (HQNOAEL < 1) for the current model.

o Northern plant: Generally has greater selenium concentrations in both tissue types relative to the southern grids; potentially associated with burn pads in this section of the plant.

o Selenium bioaccumulation rates are greater at the site than observed in the literature – more study will be needed to understand this dynamic.

o NYSDEC raised questions regarding the extent of the reactive soils and the definition disposal area extent. The January 1997 Interim Corrective Measures (ICM) report for Explosives will be provided to the NYSDEC for their files.

• Additional Site Characterizations o SWMU 35 Perimeter Soil Evaluation

No risk associated with metals concentrations in perimeter soils. Rebecca requested the locations of the soil samples be placed on a figure with the topography of the area.

o On-Site Drainage Sediment Characterization As reviewed in September, sediment results from site drainages indicate

potential migration pathways o Downstream Sediment Characterization

Elevated concentrations of site-related metals (e.g., Hg, Cu) observed in sediments downstream of SWMU 1/22

Metals concentrations consistent with sediment depositional patterns which are influenced by channel morphology and water velocity

Substantial decrease in metals concentrations between stations DNS-02 and DNS-03 where channel changes from a broad, low velocity wetland stream to a narrower, more defined channel with variable channel features (e.g., riffles)

• Schedule o David Crosby requested that the group develop a preliminary schedule of key

project milestones and deliverables, the following draft schedule is the results of those discussions:

FWIA Step IIC Report • Report submitted to the NYSDEC by March 31, 2011

4 of 5

________________________________ EHSs ~~eEi~L!ie


5 of 5

• NYSDEC to review and provide comments by late April or early May

• Report is finalized in July 2011 Site Visit

• The NYSDEC requested that the project team tour the facility in May or June based on David Crosby and Paul Patel’s availability

Hg Speciation • The Hg speciation approach will need to be approved by the

NYSDEC prior to the CMS revisions. Citizen’s Availability Session (CAS)

• The NYSDEC requested a CAS be planned for the summer of 2011

• Dyno Nobel and Ashland will work collaboratively with the NYSDEC to develop a fact sheet and site figures that outline the remedial options at the site to the public

• Per our discussions the meeting will include the following: o The meeting will be held locally at a location to be

determined at a later date and will include representatives from Dyno Nobel and Ashland as well as the NYSDEC and Department of Health

o A slideshow will be designed on a “loop” however no formal presentation will be made – the focus will be on addressing public questions and concerns

Corrective Measures Study (CMS) • The CMS will be revised and submitted for NYSDEC review in

October 2011 • Work will begin on the CMS in April after the FWIA report results

have been agreed upon Statement of Basis

• Statement of Basis (SoB) will be issued by the NYSDEC in the December 2011

Remedial Design • This phase will be initiated when the SoB is issued • This will include the updating of the existing deed restrictions to

include a cap maintenance plan for the proposed on site landfill areas as well as the indoor air concerns in the shell house

Annual Meeting • The NYSDEC requested that an annual meeting be held in January

or February to discuss annual goals and project schedule

________________________________ EHSs ~~eEi~L!ie

I..-

----.+--&- ~C..-/-D~NO Nct'4 -Pee.+ ~d\l . .aiJ1 -- ---- -

__ 2/~r /, .._ ________ _

I'

v , ('\) ~ EC..- E:

~~ PE-c _])£!'\

-- -

-

--

---

- -

- - - - -

- - ~ - - --- - - - ~-

-

-- -- -- - -- --

APPENDIX B

of 21

TOXICOLOGICAL EVALUATIONOF FRESHWATER SEDIMENT SAMPLES

Ashland Port Ewen Site, New York

42 Day Hyalella aztecaSurvival, Growth and Reproduction Sediment Toxicity Test

Prepared For:Test America

301 Alpha DrivePittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15238

URS Corporation335 Commerce Drive, Suite 300

Fort Washington, Pennsylvania 19034

Prepared By:EnviroSystems, Incorporated

1 Lafayette RoadHampton, New Hampshire 03842

July 2010Reference Number 19820-10-07

42 Day Hyalella azteca Sediment Evaluation.Ashland Port Ewen Site, New York. July 2010. ESI Study Number 19820 Page 2 of 21

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.1 General Methods, Biological Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.2 Test Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.3 Test Samples and Laboratory Control Sediment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.4 Hyalella azteca Survival and Growth Toxicity Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.5 Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.6 Quality Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.7 Protocol Deviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.1 Hyalella azteca Survival and Growth Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53.2 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

4.0 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Summary of Sample Collection Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Table 2. Reference Toxicant Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Table 3. Summary of Acceptable Endpoints and Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Table 4. Summary of Project Reference Site Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Table 5. Summary of Significant Endpoints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Table 6. Day 28 Hyalella azteca Survival Summary and Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Table 7. Day 35 Hyalella azteca Survival Summary and Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Table 8. Day 42 Hyalella azteca Survival Summary and Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Table 9. Day 28 Hyalella azteca Growth, Dry Weight, Summary and Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . . . 12Table 10. Day 28 Hyalella azteca Growth, Dry Biomass, Summary and Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . . 13Table 11. Day 42 Hyalella azteca Growth, Dry Weight, Summary and Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . . . 14Table 12. Day 42 Hyalella azteca Growth, Dry Biomass, Summary and Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . . 15Table 13. Day 35 Hyalella azteca Juvenile Production per Amphipod

Summary and Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Table 14. Day 42 Hyalella azteca Juvenile Production per Amphipod

Summary and Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Table 15. Day 42 Hyalella azteca Juvenile Production per Female Amphipod

Summary and Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Table 16. Summary of Overlying Water Qualities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

APPENDIX A: RAW DATA & STATISTICAL SUPPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21



Ashland Port Ewen Site, New York42 Day Hyalella azteca

Survival, Growth and Reproduction Sediment Toxicity Test1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of chronic exposure partial life cycle toxicity tests conducted onsediment samples collected from the Ashland Port Ewen project site located in New York. Samples wereprovided by URS Corporation, Fort Washington, Pennsylvania. Testing was based on programs and protocolsdeveloped by the ASTM (2009) and US EPA (2000). The toxicity of the samples was assessed by conductingsurvival, growth and reproduction tests using the freshwater amphipod, Hyalella azteca. Toxicity tests andsupporting analyses were performed at EnviroSystems, Incorporated (ESI), Hampton, New Hampshire.

Toxicity tests expose groups of organisms to environmental samples, a laboratory control and fieldreference sites for a specified period to assess potential impacts on a variety of endpoints, such as survival,growth or reproduction. Analysis of variance techniques are used to determine the relative toxicity of thesamples as compared to the laboratory control and/or field reference sites. Endpoints for this study includedsurvival (measured on days 28, 35 and 42), growth (measured on days 28 and 42, as mean dry weight andmean dry biomass), reproduction (measured on days 35 and 42 as juvenile production per surviving amphipodand day 42 as juveniles per surviving female amphipod). 2.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1 General Methods, Biological EvaluationsToxicological and analytical protocols used in this program follow procedures outlined in Test Methods

for Measuring the Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates (ASTMMethod E 1706-05, 2009), Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associatedContaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates (US EPA 2000) and Standard Methods for the Examination ofWater and Wastewater, 20th Edition (APHA 1998). These protocols provide standard approaches for physicaland chemical analysis and for the evaluation of toxicological effects of sediments on aquatic invertebrates.

2.2 Test SpeciesH. azteca were obtained from Aquatic Research Organisms, Hampton, New Hampshire. Organisms

used in the 42 day exposure assay were approximately 7 days old at the start of the assay.2.3 Test Samples and Laboratory Control Sediment

Sediment samples collected from the Ashland Port Ewen project site were received at ESI under chain

of custody. Once received, samples were inspected to determine integrity, given unique sample numbers andlogged into the laboratory sample management database. Once logged in, the samples were placed in asecure refrigerated, 2 - 4 EC, storage area. A listing of sample sites, sample collection, and receipt informationis summarized in Table 1.

The control substrate was an artificial sediment prepared according to guidance presented in theEPA/ASTM method. Organic detritus from Chironomid cultures plus disintegrated paper pulp was used toprovide organic content. Overlying water for the sediment toxicity tests was a mixture of natural surface water,collected from the upper portion of the Taylor River watershed in Hampton Falls, New Hampshire, andmoderately hard reconstituted water. Use of natural surface water mixed with artificial reconstituted water isrecommended by the protocol (EPA 2000, ASTM 2009).


2.4 Hyalella azteca Survival and Growth Toxicity TestsPrior to test initiation, test sediments were homogenized under a nitrogen atmosphere. Sediments

were placed in test vessels and overlying water was immediately added. The vessels were left undisturbedovernight to stabilize. The chambers received one volume addition daily until organisms were added.

Test vessels were 400 mL glass beakers containing 100 mL of sediment and approximately 250 mLof overlying water. Test vessels were drilled at a consistent height above their bases and the hole coveredwith Nytex® screen. The screened hole facilitates water exchange while retaining test organisms. Vesselswere maintained in a water bath during the test. Depth of the water in the bath was set below the drain holein the test vessel to eliminate flow of water from the bath into the test vessel. Test chambers were randomlyplaced in the water bath after addition of test sediments. Placement locations were generated by the CETIS®software program. The randomization work sheets are included in the data appendix. The water bath wasmaintained in a limited access, temperature controlled room. Temperatures in the room and water bath wereindependently set at a temperature of 23EC. Temperature was recorded on an hourly frequency using atemperature logger placed in a surrogate vessel. The photoperiod in the test chamber was set at 16:8 hourlight:dark. Lighting was supplied by cool white florescent bulbs.

A total of 10 amphipods were randomly selected from the pool of organisms and added to eachtreatment. Each treatment group included 12 replicates and a surrogate test chamber that was used to obtainwater qualities during the assay without disturbing the test animals. The surrogate chamber was treated thesame as actual test chambers with the addition of animals and food, but was not used to determine endpointdata.

Prior to the daily overlying water renewal, dissolved oxygen, pH, specific conductance and temperaturewere measured in the surrogate chamber for each treatment. Overlying water in each replicate was thenrenewed. The volume of water added to each test chamber was approximately two volumes. Waterexchanges were facilitated by use of a distribution system designed to provide equal, regulated flow to eachchamber. The system was activated manually by the addition of water during the assay. After overlying waterrenewal each replicate was fed 1.0 mL of a yeast/trout chow/alfalfa suspension. Alkalinity, ammonia andhardness of the overlying water were measured on days 0, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35 and 42. The total organic carbonof the overlying water was measured on days 0 and 28. Additionally the pore water was sampled at the startand end of the assay to determine ammonia levels. Water quality records are available in Appendix A.

After 28 days exposure, all replicates of each test treatment were terminated to collect data for initialsurvival. Each test chamber was gently swirled to loosen the sediments and the test material was dumpedinto a stainless steel sieve. The sediments were washed through the sieve using freshwater and material lefton the screen was sorted to recover the organisms. This process was continued until the entire sample wasevaluated.

Surviving amphipods from 4 replicates identified for day 28 survival and growth analysis were countedand placed on tared weighing pans. Pans were dried overnight at 104EC to obtain dry weight to the nearest0.01 mg. The mean dry weight of surviving organisms was determined to assess growth.

Surviving amphipods from the remaining 8 replicates were enumerated and then returned to testchambers, filled with a 50:50 mix of natural surface water and moderately hard reconstituted water. The testvessels were returned to the water bath for the additional 14 day exposure. During this period, water qualitymonitoring, water exchanges and feeding were conducted in the same manner as during the initial 28 dayexposure. Survival and juvenile counts were recorded on Days 35 and 42, in the remaining eight replicatesof each test treatment. Growth, measured as dry weight and dry biomass, was determined on Day 42.

2.5 Statistical Analysis Survival, growth and reproduction were analyzed using CETIS® software to determine significant

differences between the test sediments and both the laboratory control and reference site sediments. Datasets were evaluated to determine normality of distribution and homogeneity of sample variance. Data setswere subsequently evaluated using the appropriate parametric or non-parametric Analysis of Variance


(ANOVA) statistic. Statistical comparisons were made for the following endpoints; survival on days 28, 35 and42; dry weight and dry biomass on days 28 and 42; juveniles produced per surviving amphipod on days 35and 42; and juveniles produced per surviving female amphipod on day 42. Pair-wise comparisons were madeusing the appropriate statistical evaluation. Statistical difference was evaluated at α=0.05.

2.6 Quality ControlAs part of the laboratory quality control program, reference toxicant evaluations are conducted by ESI

on a regular basis for each test species. These results provide relative health and response data whileallowing for comparison with historic data sets. Results are summarized in Table 2.

2.7 Protocol DeviationsReview of data generated during the 42-Day exposure period documented the following protocol

deviations.There were a few replicates that had more than 10 animals added to test vessels at the assay start.The temperature data logger for the assay was pulled on Day 8 on 07/22/10 and was not replaced until

Day 12 on 07/26/10, resulting in a loss of 4 days of hourly temperature readings. According to ESI’s SOP andthe method described in the ASTM (2009), temperature should be monitored hourly during the assay. Sincethis is described as a “should” statement and not a “must” statement, the data remains valid. Additionally,water qualities observed during this time were within protocol limits and conditions in the laboratory remainedconsistent. It is likely that readings during the four days would have been similar to those observed duringthe remainder of the assay.

There were some instances when the observed survival counts on Day 35 were lower than counts onDay 42. Since the observations are made while the animals are swimming in the test chamber, it wasassumed that the lower count made on Day 35 was not accurate and these counts were corrected to reflectthe actual number alive.

It is the opinion of ESI’s study director that these deviations did not adversely affect the outcome of theassay.TABLE 1. Summary of Sample Collection Information. Ashland Port Ewen Site, New York. July 2010.

Sample Collected Sample ReceivedField ID ESI Code Designation Date Time Date TimePE-SQT-09 19820-008 reference 06/16/10 1000 06/18/10 1330PE-SQT-10 19820-009 reference 06/16/10 1300 06/18/10 1330PE-SQT-11 19820-010 reference 06/16/10 1600 06/18/10 1330PE-SQT-01 19820-001 test 06/14/10 1645 06/16/10 1100PE-SQT-02 19820-002 test 06/15/10 1315 06/16/10 1100PE-SQT-05 19820-003 test 06/15/10 1600 06/16/10 1100PE-SQT-06 19820-004 test 06/15/10 1000 06/16/10 1100PE-SQT-04 19820-005 test 06/17/10 1415 06/18/10 1330PE-SQT-07 19820-006 test 06/17/10 1200 06/18/10 1330PE-SQT-08 19820-007 test 06/17/10 0830 06/18/10 1330PE-SQT-03 19820-011 test 06/23/10 1430 06/24/10 1100


Table 2. Reference Toxicant Evaluation. Ashland Port Ewen Site, New York. July 2010.

Date Endpoint ValueHistoric Mean/

Central TendencyAcceptable

RangeReferenceToxicant

Hyalella azteca08/26/10 Survival LC-50 0.0265 0.0100 0.000 - 0.051 Cadmium (mg/L)3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Laboratory Control and Project Reference Site PerformanceAt the end of the 28 day exposure period, mean survival in laboratory control sediment was 87.5% with

a coefficient of variation (CV) of 18.95%. Amphipods recovered from laboratory control sediment had a meandry weight of 0.443 mg/amphipod, with a CV of 43.24%. The dry weight of a representative group ofamphipods at the start of the assay was 0.016 mg/individual. The minimum test acceptability criteria forsurvival in the laboratory control is $80%. The minimum acceptable criteria for growth is a demonstration ofincreased dry weight after 28 days exposure. The minimum acceptable criteria for reproduction is ademonstration of juvenile production. These criteria were met indicating that the organisms were healthy andnot stressed by handling and that the overlying water did not adversely impact the results of the assay. Table3 provides a summary of assay acceptability criteria and laboratory control achievement. Table 4 summarizesthe reference site performance.

During daily water quality observations the temperature recorded for the assay had a mean value of23.23EC with a range of 21.23 to 24.75EC. Confirmation temperature data collected in a surrogate replicatedocumented a mean temperature of 23.5EC with a range of 21.2 to 25.5EC. Test acceptability criteria requiresa mean temperature of 23±1EC, with maximum temporary fluctuations of 23±3EC.Table 3. Summary of Acceptable Endpoints and Measurements. Ashland Port Ewen Site, New

York. July 2010.

Endpoint / Measurement Protocol Criteria Study 19881Survival lab mean $ 80% Mean Survival % 87.5%

Protocol Met Yes

Growth Measured Growthstart dry wt. (mg) 0.016end dry wt. (mg) 0.443Protocol Met Yes

Reproduction juveniles produced in labday 35 j / amphipod 0.439day 42 j / amphipod 4.605Protocol Met Yes

Temperaturemean: 23E±1EC daily / hourly 23.23 / 23.5minimum: 20EC daily / hourly 21.23 / 21.2maximum: 26EC daily / hourly 24.75 / 25.5

Protocol Met Yes / Yes

Table 4. Summary of Project Reference Site Performance. Ashland Port Ewen Site, New York. July2010.

Mean Percent Survival Mean Dry Weight(mg)

Mean Dry Biomass(mg)

Juveniles per SurvivingAmphipod Female

Field ID ESI Code Day 28 Day 35 Day 42 Day 28 Day 42 Day 28 Day 42 Day 35 Day 42 Day 42PE-SQT-09 19820-008 83.33 76.25 76.25 0.507 0.839 0.418 0.615 0.851 4.957 6.667PE-SQT-10 19820-009 80.00 73.75 72.50 0.565 0.749 0.469 0.537 0.313 3.027 5.682PE-SQT-11 19820-010 80.83 80.00 76.25 0.504 0.776 0.409 0.578 0.808 3.601 5.862


3.2 SummaryThis program utilized protocols developed by the U.S. EPA and ASTM to assess the potential toxicological impacts that exposure to sediments from the

Ashland Port Ewen project site would have on freshwater invertebrates. Table 5 provides a summary of sample sites that demonstrated a negative effect, basedon the finding of statistically significant reduction in an endpoint as compared to the laboratory control or reference site. Tables 6 through 15 provide summariesof assay endpoints and detailed statistical results for each sample location. Table 16 summarizes overlying water qualities measured during the test. Laboratorybench sheets, detailed summaries of survival, dry weights, emergence and associated statistical support data are included in Appendix A.

Table 5. Summary of Significant Endpoints. Ashland Port Ewen Site, New York. July 2010.

Finding of Significant Difference(s) between Project Sites andLab Control(19820-000)

PE-SQT-09(19820-008)

PE-SQT-10(19820-009)

PE-SQT-11(19820-010)

Composite Ref(19820-099)

survival dry wt drybio.

juvenilesper

surviving survival dry wt drybio.

juvenilesper

surviving survival dry wt dry bio.juveniles

persurviving survival dry wt

drybio.

juvenilesper

surviving survival dry wt dry bio.juveniles

persurviving

Field ID ESI Code day 2

8da

y 35

day 4

2da

y 28

day 4

2da

y 28

day 4

2

%& &da

y 28

day 3

5da

y 42

day 2

8da

y 42

day 2

8da

y 42

%& &

day 2

8da

y 35

day 4

2da

y 28

day 4

2da

y 28

day 4

2

%& &

day 2

8da

y 35

day 4

2da

y 28

day 4

2da

y 28

day 4

2

%& &

day 2

8da

y 35

day 4

2da

y 28

day 4

2da

y 28

day 4

2

%& &

day 3

5da

y 42

day 4

2

day 3

5da

y 42

day 4

2

day 3

5da

y 42

day 4

2

day 3

5da

y 42

day 4

2

day 3

5da

y 42

day 4

2

PE-SQT-09 19820-008PE-SQT-10 19820-009PE-SQT-11 19820-010PE-SQT-01 19820-001 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XPE-SQT-02 19820-002 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XPE-SQT-05 19820-003 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XPE-SQT-06 19820-004 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XPE-SQT-04 19820-005 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XPE-SQT-07 19820-006 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XPE-SQT-08 19820-007 X X XPE-SQT-03 19820-011 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X


4.0 REFERENCES

APHA. 1998. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th Edition. Washington D.C. ASTM. 2009. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Volume 11.06. Test Methods for Measuring the Toxicity of

Sediment-Associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates. E 1706-05. ASTM, Philadelphia.EnviroSystems SOP QA-1466: 42 Day Assessment Toxicity of Sediments To The Amphipod, Hyalella azteca

based on Survival and Growth.U.S. EPA. 2000. Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated

Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates. Second Edition. EPA/600-R-99/064.


Table 6. Day 28 Hyalella azteca Survival Summary and Statistical Analysis. Ashland Port EwenSite, New York. July 2010.

Day 28 Survival SummaryField ID ESI Code Reps Mean Minimum Maximum CVLab Control 19820-000 12 87.50% 50.0% 100.0% 18.95%PE-SQT-09 19820-008 12 83.33% 50.0% 100.0% 20.04%PE-SQT-10 19820-009 12 80.00% 40.0% 100.0% 18.46%PE-SQT-11 19820-010 12 80.83% 60.0% 100.0% 15.34%Comp Ref 19820-099 36 81.67% 40.0% 100.0% 17.92%PE-SQT-01 19820-001 12 61.67% 20.0% 90.0% 34.46%PE-SQT-02 19820-002 12 64.17% 10.0% 90.0% 33.53%PE-SQT-05 19820-003 12 9.17% 0.0% 40.0% 135.30%PE-SQT-06 19820-004 12 35.00% 0.0% 90.0% 78.48%PE-SQT-04 19820-005 12 25.83% 10.0% 60.0% 68.97%PE-SQT-07 19820-006 12 70.83% 30.0% 100.0% 28.53%PE-SQT-08 19820-007 12 70.83% 30.0% 100.0% 29.16%PE-SQT-03 19820-011 12 0.00% 0.0% 0.0% 0.00%

Day 28 Survival StatisticalAnalysis

Statistically Significant Difference (less than) as Compared toLab Control(19820-000)

PE-SQT-09(19820-008)

PE-SQT-10(19820-009)

PE-SQT-11(19820-010)


Field ID ESI Code Mean p Value p Value p Value p Value p ValueLab Control 19820-000 87.50% - - - - - - - - - -PE-SQT-09 19820-008 83.33% 0.2531 No - - - - - - - -PE-SQT-10 19820-009 80.00% 0.0862 No 0.2539 No - - - - - -PE-SQT-11 19820-010 80.83% 0.1051 No 0.2977 No 0.5650 No - - - -Comp Ref 19820-099 81.67% - - - - - - - - - -PE-SQT-01 19820-001 61.67% 0.0009 Yes 0.0041 Yes 0.0098 Yes 0.0065 Yes 0.0004 YesPE-SQT-02 19820-002 64.17% 0.0021 Yes 0.0089 Yes 0.0072 Yes 0.0148 Yes 0.0019 YesPE-SQT-05 19820-003 9.17% <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 YesPE-SQT-06 19820-004 35.00% <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 YesPE-SQT-04 19820-005 25.83% <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 YesPE-SQT-07 19820-006 70.83% 0.0144 Yes 0.0518 No 0.1200 No 0.0926 No 0.0303 YesPE-SQT-08 19820-007 70.83% 0.0164 Yes 0.0569 No 0.1294 No 0.1010 No 0.0337 YesPE-SQT-03 19820-011 0.00% <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 Yes



Day 35 Survival SummaryField ID ESI Code Reps Mean Minimum Maximum CVLab Control 19820-000 8 75.00% 10.0% 100.0% 39.04%PE-SQT-09 19820-008 8 76.25% 30.0% 100.0% 28.85%PE-SQT-10 19820-009 8 73.75% 30.0% 100.0% 29.83%PE-SQT-11 19820-010 8 80.00% 60.0% 100.0% 18.90%Comp Ref 19820-099 24 76.67% 30.0% 100.0% 25.12%PE-SQT-01 19820-001 8 43.75% 10.0% 70.0% 48.78%PE-SQT-02 19820-002 8 63.75% 40.0% 80.0% 25.07%PE-SQT-05 19820-003 8 8.75% 0.0% 40.0% 155.00%PE-SQT-06 19820-004 8 30.00% 0.0% 80.0% 77.66%PE-SQT-04 19820-005 8 25.00% 0.0% 60.0% 82.81%PE-SQT-07 19820-006 8 71.25% 20.0% 100.0% 35.54%PE-SQT-08 19820-007 8 71.25% 40.0% 100.0% 29.48%PE-SQT-03 19820-011 NS - - - -



PE-SQT-09(19820-008)

PE-SQT-10(19820-009)

PE-SQT-11(19820-010)


Field ID ESI Code Mean p Value p Value p Value p Value p ValueLab Control 19820-000 75.00% - - - - - - - - - -PE-SQT-09 19820-008 76.25% 0.5230 No - - - - - - - -PE-SQT-10 19820-009 73.75% 0.4498 No 0.4124 No - - - - - -PE-SQT-11 19820-010 80.00% 0.6395 No 0.6442 No 0.7284 No - - - -Comp Ref 19820-099 76.67% - - - - - - - - - -PE-SQT-01 19820-001 43.75% 0.0147 Yes* 0.0043 Yes 0.0071 Yes 0.0010 Yes 0.0002 YesPE-SQT-02 19820-002 63.75% 0.1525

0.0085No*Yes*

0.0844 No 0.1302 No 0.0252 Yes 0.0403 Yes

PE-SQT-05 19820-003 8.75% <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 YesPE-SQT-06 19820-004 30.00% 0.0028 Yes 0.0007 Yes 0.0011 Yes 0.0002 Yes <0.0001 YesPE-SQT-04 19820-005 25.00% 0.0010 Yes 0.0002 Yes 0.0003 Yes <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 YesPE-SQT-07 19820-006 71.25% 0.3807 No 0.3358 No 0.4144 No 0.2136 No 0.2648 NoPE-SQT-08 19820-007 71.25% 0.3822 No 0.3326 No 0.4175 No 0.1999 No 0.2667 NoPE-SQT-03 19820-011 0.00% <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 Yes*

Note: “NS” Indicates No Survivors.“*” Indicates cases where a statistical outlier was detected and statistical comparisons were madewith and without the outlier. Instances where the calculated p Value resulted in a different findingwith respect to rejection, both p values are presented.



Day 42 Survival SummaryField ID ESI Code Reps Mean Minimum Maximum CVLab Control 19820-000 8 68.86% 10.0% 100.0% 42.25%PE-SQT-09 19820-008 8 76.25% 30.0% 100.0% 28.85%PE-SQT-10 19820-009 8 72.50% 30.0% 100.0% 31.06%PE-SQT-11 19820-010 8 76.25% 60.0% 100.0% 20.96%Comp Ref 19820-099 24 75.00% 30.0% 100.0% 26.08%PE-SQT-01 19820-001 8 38.75% 10.0% 70.0% 52.41%PE-SQT-02 19820-002 8 63.75% 40.0% 80.0% 25.07%PE-SQT-05 19820-003 8 8.75% 0.0% 40.0% 155.00%PE-SQT-06 19820-004 8 28.75% 0.0% 80.0% 81.97%PE-SQT-04 19820-005 8 22.50% 0.0% 60.0% 88.09%PE-SQT-07 19820-006 8 66.25% 10.0% 100.0% 41.88%PE-SQT-08 19820-007 8 68.75% 30.0% 100.0% 37.64%PE-SQT-03 19820-011 NS - - - -



PE-SQT-09(19820-008)

PE-SQT-10(19820-009)

PE-SQT-11(19820-010)


Field ID ESI Code Mean p Value p Value p Value p Value p ValueLab Control 19820-000 68.86% - - - - - - - - - -PE-SQT-09 19820-008 76.25% 0.7079 No - - - - - - - -PE-SQT-10 19820-009 72.50% 0.6078 No 0.3755 No - - - - - -PE-SQT-11 19820-010 76.25% 0.7145 No 0.4946 No 0.6289 No - - - -Comp Ref 19820-099 75.00% - - - - - - - - - -PE-SQT-01 19820-001 38.75% 0.0169 Yes 0.0016 Yes 0.0036 Yes 0.0008 Yes 0.0001 YesPE-SQT-02 19820-002 63.75% 0.3025 No* 0.0844 No 0.1593 No 0.0651 No 0.0637 NoPE-SQT-05 19820-003 8.75% <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 YesPE-SQT-06 19820-004 28.75% 0.0055 Yes 0.0006 Yes 0.0012 Yes 0.0003 Yes <0.0001 YesPE-SQT-04 19820-005 22.50% 0.0014 Yes <0.0001 Yes 0.0002 Yes <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 YesPE-SQT-07 19820-006 66.25% 0.4210 No 0.2156 No 0.3068 No 0.2056 No 0.1667 NoPE-SQT-08 19820-007 68.75% 0.5249 No 0.3047 No 0.4130 No 0.2975 No 0.2851 NoPE-SQT-03 19820-011 0.00% <0.0001 Yes* 0.0001 Yes* <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 Yes



Table 9. Day 28 Hyalella azteca Growth, Dry Weight, Summary and Statistical Analysis. AshlandPort Ewen Site, New York. July 2010.

Day 28 Dry Weight SummaryField ID ESI Code Reps Mean Minimum Maximum CVLab Control 19820-000 4 0.443 0.197 0.610 43.24%PE-SQT-09 19820-008 4 0.507 0.478 0.520 3.89%PE-SQT-10 19820-009 4 0.565 0.444 0.696 19.00%PE-SQT-11 19820-010 4 0.504 0.375 0.574 17.52%Comp Ref 19820-099 12 0.525 0.375 0.696 15.02%PE-SQT-01 19820-001 4 0.430 0.161 0.700 54.60%PE-SQT-02 19820-002 4 0.444 0.341 0.533 18.57%PE-SQT-05 19820-003 4 0.493 0.415 0.570 22.25%PE-SQT-06 19820-004 4 0.095 0.077 0.112 18.19%PE-SQT-04 19820-005 4 0.209 0.098 0.360 58.99%PE-SQT-07 19820-006 4 0.345 0.313 0.394 10.00%PE-SQT-08 19820-007 4 0.485 0.362 0.650 24.85%PE-SQT-03 19820-011 NS - - - -

Day 28 Dry Weight StatisticalAnalysis


PE-SQT-09(19820-008)

PE-SQT-10(19820-009)

PE-SQT-11(19820-010)


Field ID ESI Code Mean p Value p Value p Value p Value p ValueLab Control 19820-000 0.443 - - - - - - - - - -PE-SQT-09 19820-008 0.507 0.7229 No - - - - - - - -PE-SQT-10 19820-009 0.565 0.8449 No 0.8346 No - - - - - -PE-SQT-11 19820-010 0.504 0.7086 No 0.4771 No 0.2090 No - - - -Comp Ref 19820-099 0.525 - - - - - - - - - -PE-SQT-01 19820-001 0.430 0.4666 No 0.2794 No 0.1680 No 0.2871 No 0.2413 NoPE-SQT-02 19820-002 0.444 0.5029 No 0.0934 No 0.0621 No 0.1779 No 0.0491 YesPE-SQT-05 19820-003 0.493 0.6203 No 0.3939 No 0.2419 No 0.4468 No 0.3056 NoPE-SQT-06 19820-004 0.095 0.0140 Yes <0.0001 Yes 0.0004 Yes 0.0003 Yes <0.0001 YesPE-SQT-04 19820-005 0.209 0.0428 Yes 0.0015 Yes 0.0024 Yes 0.0040 Yes <0.0001 YesPE-SQT-07 19820-006 0.345 0.1773 No <0.0001 Yes 0.0040 Yes 0.0077 Yes 0.0003 YesPE-SQT-08 19820-007 0.485 0.6373 No 0.3638 No 0.1798 No 0.4011 No 0.2224 NoPE-SQT-03 19820-011 NS - - - - - - - - - -

Note: “NS” Indicates No Survivors.


Table 10. Day 28 Hyalella azteca Growth, Dry Biomass, Summary and Statistical Analysis. AshlandPort Ewen Site, New York. July 2010.

Day 28 Biomass SummaryField ID ESI Code Reps Mean Minimum Maximum CVLab Control 19820-000 4 0.369 0.197 0.488 33.31%PE-SQT-09 19820-008 4 0.418 0.364 0.516 16.25%PE-SQT-10 19820-009 4 0.469 0.355 0.626 24.72%PE-SQT-11 19820-010 4 0.409 0.375 0.459 9.69%Comp Ref 19820-099 12 0.432 0.355 0.626 18.11%PE-SQT-01 19820-001 4 0.313 0.129 0.490 49.13%PE-SQT-02 19820-002 4 0.234 0.042 0.336 57.64%PE-SQT-05 19820-003 4 0.035 0.000 0.083 119.40%PE-SQT-06 19820-004 4 0.038 0.000 0.067 78.82%PE-SQT-04 19820-005 4 0.054 0.012 0.129 95.26%PE-SQT-07 19820-006 4 0.205 0.169 0.250 16.45%PE-SQT-08 19820-007 4 0.308 0.136 0.585 65.68%PE-SQT-03 19820-011 NS - - - -

Day 28 Biomass StatisticalAnalysis


PE-SQT-09(19820-008)

PE-SQT-10(19820-009)

PE-SQT-11(19820-010)


Field ID ESI Code Mean p Value p Value p Value p Value p ValueLab Control 19820-000 0.369 - - - - - - - - - -PE-SQT-09 19820-008 0.418 0.7453 No - - - - - - - -PE-SQT-10 19820-009 0.469 0.8594 No 0.7607 No - - - - - -PE-SQT-11 19820-010 0.409 0.7184 No 0.4062 No 0.1807 No - - - -Comp Ref 19820-099 0.432 - - - - - - - - - -PE-SQT-01 19820-001 0.313 0.2950 No 0.1286 No 0.0782 No 0.1372 No 0.0286 YesPE-SQT-02 19820-002 0.234 0.0952 No 0.0254 Yes 0.0193 Yes 0.0240 Yes 0.0013 YesPE-SQT-05 19820-003 0.035 0.0011 Yes <0.0001 Yes 0.0002 Yes <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 Yes*PE-SQT-06 19820-004 0.038 0.0010 Yes <0.0001 Yes 0.0002 Yes <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 Yes*PE-SQT-04 19820-005 0.054 0.0016 Yes 0.0001 Yes 0.0003 Yes <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 Yes*PE-SQT-07 19820-006 0.205 0.0208 Yes 0.0007 Yes 0.0023 Yes 0.0001 Yes <0.0001 Yes*PE-SQT-08 19820-007 0.308 0.3132 No 0.1713 No 0.1087 No 0.1843 No 0.0437 YesPE-SQT-03 19820-011 0.000 0.0005 Yes <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 Yes*



Table 11. Day 42 Hyalella azteca Growth, Dry Weight, Summary and Statistical Analysis. AshlandPort Ewen Site, New York. July 2010.

Day 42 Dry Weight SummaryField ID ESI Code Reps Mean Minimum Maximum CVLab Control 19820-000 8 0.5030 0.110 0.783 37.23%PE-SQT-09 19820-008 8 0.8389 0.621 1.217 20.34%PE-SQT-10 19820-009 8 0.7487 0.646 0.891 11.41%PE-SQT-11 19820-010 8 0.7763 0.632 1.040 18.54%Comp Ref 19820-099 24 0.7880 0.621 1.217 17.44%PE-SQT-01 19820-001 8 0.4832 0.230 0.878 43.91%PE-SQT-02 19820-002 8 0.5806 0.333 0.853 25.18%PE-SQT-05 19820-003 8 0.9806 0.723 1.310 25.40%PE-SQT-06 19820-004 8 0.7009 0.461 0.870 19.84%PE-SQT-04 19820-005 8 0.6554 0.440 0.940 25.78%PE-SQT-07 19820-006 8 0.6468 0.346 0.863 27.24%PE-SQT-08 19820-007 8 0.7092 0.314 0.913 27.24%PE-SQT-03 19820-011 NS - - - -

Day 42 Dry Weight StatisticalAnalysis


PE-SQT-09(19820-008)

PE-SQT-10(19820-009)

PE-SQT-11(19820-010)


Field ID ESI Code Mean p Value p Value p Value p Value p ValueLab Control 19820-000 0.5030 - - - - - - - - - -PE-SQT-09 19820-008 0.8389 0.9989 No - - - - - - - -PE-SQT-10 19820-009 0.7487 0.9977 No* 0.1012 No* - - - - - -PE-SQT-11 19820-010 0.7763 0.9972 No 0.2202 No 0.6757 No - - - -Comp Ref 19820-099 0.7880 - - - - - - - - - -PE-SQT-01 19820-001 0.4832 0.4231 No 0.0012 Yes 0.0027 Yes 0.0030 Yes <0.0001 YesPE-SQT-02 19820-002 0.5806 0.8143 No 0.0029 Yes 0.0070 Yes 0.0087 Yes 0.0005 YesPE-SQT-05 19820-003 0.9806 0.9981 No 0.8657 No 0.9831 No 0.9517 No 0.9854 NoPE-SQT-06 19820-004 0.7009 0.9804 No 0.0564 No 0.2149 No 0.1614 No 0.0759 NoPE-SQT-04 19820-005 0.6554 0.9379 No 0.0285 Yes 0.0956 No 0.0790 No 0.0206 YesPE-SQT-07 19820-006 0.6468 0.9320 No 0.0219 Yes 0.0816 No 0.0649 No 0.0129 YesPE-SQT-08 19820-007 0.7092 0.9760 No 0.0881 No 0.3023 No* 0.2219 No 0.1073 NoPE-SQT-03 19820-011 NS - - - - - - - - - -



Table 12. Day 42 Hyalella azteca Growth, Dry Biomass, Summary and Statistical Analysis. AshlandPort Ewen Site, New York. July 2010.

Day 42 Dry Biomass SummaryField ID ESI Code Reps Mean Minimum Maximum CVLab Control 19820-000 8 0.3849 0.011 0.705 54.09%PE-SQT-09 19820-008 8 0.6148 0.365 0.810 24.32%PE-SQT-10 19820-009 8 0.5374 0.212 0.704 28.11%PE-SQT-11 19820-010 8 0.5782 0.489 0.728 14.69%Comp Ref 19820-099 24 0.5768 0.212 0.810 22.60%PE-SQT-01 19820-001 8 0.2071 0.042 0.527 81.89%PE-SQT-02 19820-002 8 0.3627 0.208 0.502 29.06%PE-SQT-05 19820-003 8 0.0761 0.000 0.289 133.50%PE-SQT-06 19820-004 8 0.1827 0.000 0.369 61.04%PE-SQT-04 19820-005 8 0.1449 0.000 0.352 83.16%PE-SQT-07 19820-006 8 0.4165 0.085 0.604 47.57%PE-SQT-08 19820-007 8 0.4784 0.157 0.663 39.45%PE-SQT-03 19820-011 NS - - - -

Day 42 Biomass StatisticalAnalysis


PE-SQT-09(19820-008)

PE-SQT-10(19820-009)

PE-SQT-11(19820-010)


Field ID ESI Code Mean p Value p Value p Value p Value p ValueLab Control 19820-000 0.3849 - - - - - - - - - -PE-SQT-09 19820-008 0.6148 0.9881 No - - - - - - - -PE-SQT-10 19820-009 0.5374 0.9421 No 0.1603 No - - - - - -PE-SQT-11 19820-010 0.5782 0.9855 No 0.2787 No 0.4487 No* - - - -Comp Ref 19820-099 0.5768 - - - - - - - - - -PE-SQT-01 19820-001 0.2071 0.0411 Yes <0.0001 Yes 0.0005 Yes <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 YesPE-SQT-02 19820-002 0.3627 0.3961 No 0.0008 Yes 0.0090 Yes 0.0002 Yes 0.0001 YesPE-SQT-05 19820-003 0.0761 0.0010 Yes <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 Yes* <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 YesPE-SQT-06 19820-004 0.1827 0.0148 Yes <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 YesPE-SQT-04 19820-005 0.1449 0.0068 Yes <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 YesPE-SQT-07 19820-006 0.4165 0.6198 No 0.0202 Yes 0.0958 No 0.0261 Yes 0.0066 YesPE-SQT-08 19820-007 0.4784 0.8186 No 0.0657 No 0.2506 No 0.0970 No 0.0547 NoPE-SQT-03 19820-011 <0.0001 0.0006 Yes* <0.0001 Yes 0.0001 Yes* <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 Yes



Table 13. Day 35 Hyalella azteca Juvenile Production per Amphipod Summary and StatisticalAnalysis. Ashland Port Ewen Site, New York. July 2010.

Day 35 Juvenile Production SummaryField ID ESI Code Reps Mean Minimum Maximum CVLab Control 19820-000 8 0.439 0.00 1.11 96.47%PE-SQT-09 19820-008 8 0.851 0.00 2.63 100.80%PE-SQT-10 19820-009 8 0.313 0.00 1.17 137.60%PE-SQT-11 19820-010 8 0.808 0.33 1.43 56.49%Comp Ref 19820-099 24 0.657 0.00 2.63 96.94%PE-SQT-01 19820-001 8 0.063 0.00 0.50 282.80%PE-SQT-02 19820-002 8 0.153 0.00 0.67 167.60%PE-SQT-05 19820-003 8 0.000 0.00 0.00 -PE-SQT-06 19820-004 8 0.191 0.00 1.00 198.40%PE-SQT-04 19820-005 8 0.286 0.00 2.00 264.60%PE-SQT-07 19820-006 8 0.345 0.00 1.29 148.00%PE-SQT-08 19820-007 8 0.974 0.00 3.33 113.00%PE-SQT-03 19820-011 NS - - - -

Day 35 Juvenile ProductionStatistical Analysis


PE-SQT-09(19820-008)

PE-SQT-10(19820-009)

PE-SQT-11(19820-010)


Field ID ESI Code Mean p Value p Value p Value p Value p ValueLab Control 19820-000 0.439 - - - - - - - - - -PE-SQT-09 19820-008 0.851 0.8779 No* - - - - - - - -PE-SQT-10 19820-009 0.313 0.2815 No 0.0676 No* - - - - - -PE-SQT-11 19820-010 0.808 0.9416 No 0.4508 No* 0.9787 No - - - -Comp Ref 19820-099 0.657 - - - - - - - - - -PE-SQT-01 19820-001 0.063 0.0179 Yes 0.0074 Yes* 0.1172 No* 0.0004 Yes 0.0021 Yes*PE-SQT-02 19820-002 0.153 0.0617 No 0.0292 Yes* 0.2869 No 0.0016 Yes 0.0132 Yes*PE-SQT-05 19820-003 0.000 0.0353 Yes 0.0408 Yes* 0.0932 No* 0.0008 Yes 0.0078 Yes*PE-SQT-06 19820-004 0.191 0.1272 No 0.0416

*0.0575YesNo

0.2679 No 0.0072 Yes 0.0167 Yes

PE-SQT-04 19820-005 0.286 0.0603*0.0110

NoYes

0.0469 Yes 0.1984 No* 0.0103 Yes* 0.0182 Yes

PE-SQT-07 19820-006 0.345 0.3468 No 0.0869 No* 0.4796 No 0.0384 Yes 0.0877 NoPE-SQT-08 19820-007 0.974 0.8897 No* 0.5969 No 0.9320 No* 0.6508 No* 0.7304 NoPE-SQT-03 19820-011 NS - - - - - - - - - -



Table 14. Day 42 Hyalella azteca Juvenile Production per Amphipod Summary and StatisticalAnalysis. Ashland Port Ewen Site, New York. July 2010.

Day 42 Juvenile Production SummaryField ID ESI Code Reps Mean Minimum Maximum CVLab Control 19820-000 8 4.605 0.29 8.56 65.72%PE-SQT-09 19820-008 8 4.957 0.44 8.67 56.87%PE-SQT-10 19820-009 8 3.027 0.67 5.33 48.03%PE-SQT-11 19820-010 8 3.601 0.33 7.86 63.27%Comp Ref 19820-099 24 3.862 0.33 8.67 59.76%PE-SQT-01 19820-001 8 1.435 0.00 5.71 155.30%PE-SQT-02 19820-002 8 1.725 0.14 3.38 71.39%PE-SQT-05 19820-003 8 0.375 0.00 1.00 127.70%PE-SQT-06 19820-004 8 0.524 0.00 3.00 210.60%PE-SQT-04 19820-005 8 1.643 0.00 5.00 130.00%PE-SQT-07 19820-006 8 2.219 0.00 5.14 83.15%PE-SQT-08 19820-007 8 4.982 0.90 10.89 69.67%PE-SQT-03 19820-011 NS - - - -

Day 42 Juvenile ProductionStatistical Analysis


PE-SQT-09(19820-008)

PE-SQT-10(19820-009)

PE-SQT-11(19820-010)


Field ID ESI Code Mean p Value p Value p Value p Value p ValueLab Control 19820-000 4.605 - - - - - - - - - -PE-SQT-09 19820-008 4.957 0.5933 No - - - - - - - -PE-SQT-10 19820-009 3.027 0.1024 No 0.0536 No - - - - - -PE-SQT-11 19820-010 3.601 0.2329 No 0.1540 No 0.7213 No - - - -Comp Ref 19820-099 3.862 - - - - - - - - - -PE-SQT-01 19820-001 1.435 0.0159 Yes 0.0075 Yes 0.0564 No 0.0376 Yes 0.0072 YesPE-SQT-02 19820-002 1.725 0.0129 Yes 0.0051 Yes 0.0370 Yes 0.0299 Yes 0.0094 YesPE-SQT-05 19820-003 0.375 0.1492 No 0.1137 No 0.1151 No 0.1587 No 0.0032 YesPE-SQT-06 19820-004 0.524 0.0048 Yes 0.0020 Yes 0.0028 Yes 0.0060 Yes 0.0005 YesPE-SQT-04 19820-005 1.643 0.0251 Yes 0.0125 Yes 0.0807 No 0.0556 No 0.0153 YesPE-SQT-07 19820-006 2.219 0.0388 Yes 0.0187 Yes 0.1737 No 0.1019 No 0.0392 YesPE-SQT-08 19820-007 4.982 0.5898 No 0.5062 No 0.9181 No 0.8186 No 0.8479 NoPE-SQT-03 19820-011 NS - - - - - - - - - -



Table 15. Day 42 Hyalella azteca Juvenile Production per Female Amphipod Summary andStatistical Analysis. Ashland Port Ewen Site, New York. July 2010.

Day 42 Juvenile/Female SummaryField ID ESI Code Reps Mean Minimum Maximum CVLab Control 19820-000 8 6.479 0.67 13.80 66.85%PE-SQT-09 19820-008 8 6.667 0.00 13.00 69.95%PE-SQT-10 19820-009 8 5.682 1.00 10.67 53.13%PE-SQT-11 19820-010 8 5.862 2.00 11.75 55.23%Comp Ref 19820-099 24 6.079 0.00 13.00 59.03%PE-SQT-01 19820-001 8 2.310 0.00 6.67 125.40%PE-SQT-02 19820-002 8 2.646 0.25 4.50 53.58%PE-SQT-05 19820-003 8 0.500 0.50 0.50 0.00%PE-SQT-06 19820-004 8 0.583 0.00 3.00 205.80%PE-SQT-04 19820-005 8 2.517 0.00 7.00 118.20%PE-SQT-07 19820-006 8 3.364 1.00 7.20 59.30%PE-SQT-08 19820-007 8 6.944 1.80 12.00 60.74%PE-SQT-03 19820-011 NS - - - -

Day 42 Juvenile/FemaleStatistical Analysis


PE-SQT-09(19820-008)

PE-SQT-10(19820-009)

PE-SQT-11(19820-010)


Field ID ESI Code Mean p Value p Value p Value p Value p ValueLab Control 19820-000 6.479 - - - - - - - - - -PE-SQT-09 19820-008 6.667 0.5327 No - - - - - - - -PE-SQT-10 19820-009 5.682 0.3378 No 0.3118 No - - - - - -PE-SQT-11 19820-010 5.862 0.3813 No 0.3542 No 0.5437 No - - - -Comp Ref 19820-099 6.079 - - - - - - - - - -PE-SQT-01 19820-001 2.310 0.0252 Yes 0.0263 Yes 0.0233 Yes 0.0257 Yes 0.0087 YesPE-SQT-02 19820-002 2.646 0.0223 Yes 0.0240 Yes 0.0110 Yes 0.0120 Yes 0.0071 YesPE-SQT-05 19820-003 0.500 0.1172 No 0.1263 No 0.0748 No 0.0862 No 0.0711 NoPE-SQT-06 19820-004 0.583 0.0037 Yes 0.0038 Yes 0.0011 Yes 0.0016 Yes 0.0005 YesPE-SQT-04 19820-005 2.517 0.0396 Yes 0.0409 Yes 0.0372 Yes 0.0401 Yes 0.0171 YesPE-SQT-07 19820-006 3.364 0.0526 No 0.0533 No 0.0542 No 0.0539 No 0.0340 YesPE-SQT-08 19820-007 6.944 0.5845 No 0.5487 No 0.7488 No 0.7043 No 0.7107 NoPE-SQT-03 19820-011 NS - - - - - - - - - -



Table 16. Summary of Overlying Water Qualities. Ashland Port Ewen Site, New York. July 2010.

Field ID ESI Code Sample Day Conductivity Alkalinity Hardness AmmoniaNumber (uS/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)

Lab Control 19820-000 000 0 320 61 81 0.16PE-SQT-01 19820-001 001 0 366 72 94 2.6PE-SQT-02 19820-002 002 0 304 53 79 0.21PE-SQT-05 19820-003 003 0 317 67 89 0.29PE-SQT-06 19820-004 004 0 332 52 79 <0.1PE-SQT-04 19820-005 005 0 334 52 77 0.77PE-SQT-07 19820-006 006 0 330 68 90 0.19PE-SQT-08 19820-007 007 0 326 69 85 0.33PE-SQT-09 19820-008 008 0 304 57 77 0.3PE-SQT-10 19820-009 009 0 301 53 77 0.31PE-SQT-11 19820-010 010 0 289 50 71 0.67PE-SQT-03 19820-011 011 0 1099 <2 130 1.1

Lab Control 19820-000 000 7 343 81 100 <0.1PE-SQT-01 19820-001 001 7 338 77 94 1.5PE-SQT-02 19820-002 002 7 320 67 89 0.26PE-SQT-05 19820-003 003 7 328 77 94 0.15PE-SQT-06 19820-004 004 7 333 72 92 0.36PE-SQT-04 19820-005 005 7 326 71 89 0.57PE-SQT-07 19820-006 006 7 342 84 100 0.19PE-SQT-08 19820-007 007 7 333 80 90 <0.1PE-SQT-09 19820-008 008 7 408 69 88 0.3PE-SQT-10 19820-009 009 7 327 71 86 <0.1PE-SQT-11 19820-010 010 7 314 67 78 0.35PE-SQT-03 19820-011 011 7 468 <2 110 0.7

Lab Control 19820-000 000 14 360 92 110 <0.1PE-SQT-01 19820-001 001 14 333 78 92 <0.1PE-SQT-02 19820-002 002 14 325 77 89 <0.1PE-SQT-05 19820-003 003 14 338 84 90 <0.1PE-SQT-06 19820-004 004 14 348 70 94 0.29PE-SQT-04 19820-005 005 14 337 73 93 <0.1PE-SQT-07 19820-006 006 14 361 84 94 <0.1PE-SQT-08 19820-007 007 14 402 81 98 <0.1PE-SQT-09 19820-008 008 14 390 79 91 <0.1PE-SQT-10 19820-009 009 14 381 75 94 <0.1PE-SQT-11 19820-010 010 14 385 80 96 <0.1PE-SQT-03 19820-011 011 14 453 7.8 100 0.32

Lab Control 19820-000 000 21 382 82 100 <0.1PE-SQT-01 19820-001 001 21 369 64 95 <0.1PE-SQT-02 19820-002 002 21 366 71 93 <0.1PE-SQT-05 19820-003 003 21 377 82 100 <0.1PE-SQT-06 19820-004 004 21 379 67 98 <0.1PE-SQT-04 19820-005 005 21 365 69 95 <0.1PE-SQT-07 19820-006 006 21 393 89 110 <0.1PE-SQT-08 19820-007 007 21 357 78 95 <0.1PE-SQT-09 19820-008 008 21 355 76 93 <0.1



PE-SQT-10 19820-009 009 21 350 69 94 <0.1PE-SQT-11 19820-010 010 21 343 67 93 <0.1PE-SQT-03 19820-011 011 21 372 24 95 0.32

Lab Control 19820-000 000 28 359 71 94 <0.15PE-SQT-01 19820-001 001 28 353 70 100 <0.15PE-SQT-02 19820-002 002 28 351 69 92 <0.15PE-SQT-05 19820-003 003 28 355 72 96 <0.15PE-SQT-06 19820-004 004 28 359 68 94 <0.15PE-SQT-04 19820-005 005 28 359 67 92 <0.15PE-SQT-07 19820-006 006 28 369 76 99 <0.15PE-SQT-08 19820-007 007 28 336 77 92 <0.15PE-SQT-09 19820-008 008 28 327 73 92 <0.15PE-SQT-10 19820-009 009 28 326 69 90 <0.15PE-SQT-11 19820-010 010 28 324 66 88 <0.15PE-SQT-03 19820-011 011 28 334 43 86 <0.15

Lab Control 19820-000 000 35 330 62 88 <0.1PE-SQT-01 19820-001 001 35 329 65 92 <0.1PE-SQT-02 19820-002 002 35 334 67 92 <0.1PE-SQT-05 19820-003 003 35 398 83 110 <0.1PE-SQT-06 19820-004 004 35 331 64 88 <0.1PE-SQT-04 19820-005 005 35 331 64 82 <0.1PE-SQT-07 19820-006 006 35 331 66 91 0.33PE-SQT-08 19820-007 007 35 344 68 94 0.25PE-SQT-09 19820-008 008 35 332 66 91 0.18PE-SQT-10 19820-009 009 35 325 66 89 0.2PE-SQT-11 19820-010 010 35 331 66 90 0.15PE-SQT-03 19820-011 011 35 336 67 92 <0.1

Lab Control 19820-000 000 42 378 71 90 <0.1PE-SQT-01 19820-001 001 42 347 70 94 <0.1PE-SQT-02 19820-002 002 42 347 71 95 <0.1PE-SQT-05 19820-003 003 42 350 73 96 <0.1PE-SQT-06 19820-004 004 42 350 69 96 <0.1PE-SQT-04 19820-005 005 42 344 69 94 <0.1PE-SQT-07 19820-006 006 42 346 67 94 <0.1PE-SQT-08 19820-007 007 42 345 73 94 <0.1PE-SQT-09 19820-008 008 42 347 71 95 <0.1PE-SQT-10 19820-009 009 42 350 71 94 <0.1PE-SQT-11 19820-010 010 42 345 73 93 <0.1PE-SQT-03 19820-011 011 42 349 73 91 <0.1Additional water quality data are provided in Appendix A.


APPENDIX A: RAW DATA & STATISTICAL SUPPORT

Contents Number of

PagesH. azteca Survival and Reproduction Sediment Toxicity TestsDaily Observations Check List 2YSI 556 MPS Sample Reading Order 1Daily Water Quality Summary 12CETIS Worksheets 3Bench Sheets

Start Dry Weight Record 1Day 28 Organism Recovery Record 4Day 28 Dry Weight Record 1Day 35 Survival and Reproduction Record 3Day 42 Survival and Reproduction Record 3Day 42 Dry Weight Record 2

Statistical Analysis ReportsDay 28 Summary and Survival Statistical Analysis 55Day 28 Dry Weight Statistical Analysis 42Day 28 Biomass Statistical Analysis 52Day 35 Summary and Survival Statistical Analysis 60Day 35 Reproduction Statistical Analysis 61Day 42 Summary and Survival Statistical Analysis 62Day 42 Dry Weight Statistical Analysis 45Day 42 Biomass Statistical Analysis 51Day 42 Juveniles Produced per Amphipod Statistical Analysis 42Day 42 Juveniles Produced per Female Amphipod Statistical Analysis 42

Analytical Chemistry Data SummariesOverlying Water Alkalinity 2Overlying Water Hardness 2Overlying Water Ammonia 2Overlying Water Total Organic Carbon 1Pore Water Ammonia 1

Temperature Profile 1Organism History Record 1Sample Receipt Logs and Chain of Custody Records 21E-mail Communications: Reference Site Identification 1

Total Appendix Pages 576

of 16


Ashland Port Ewen Site, New York

Chironomus ripariusChronic Exposure Sediment Evaluation

Prepared For:Test America

301 Alpha DrivePittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15238

URS Corporation335 Commerce Drive, Suite 300

Fort Washington, Pennsylvania 19034

Prepared By:EnviroSystems, Incorporated

1 Lafayette RoadHampton, New Hampshire 03842

August 2010Reference Number 19820-10-07

Chironomus riparius Chronic Exposure Sediment Evaluation.Ashland Port Ewen Site, New York. July 2010. ESI Study Number 19820 Page 2 of 16

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.0 MATERIAL AND METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.1 General Methods, Biological Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.2 Test Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.3 Test Sample and Laboratory Control Sediment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.4 Chironomus riparius Emergence Assay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.5 Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.6 Quality Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.7 Protocol Deviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53.1 Laboratory Control and Project Reference Site Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53.2 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

4.0 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Summary of Sample Collection Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Table 2. Reference Toxicant Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Table 3. Summary of Acceptable Endpoints and Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Table 4. Summary of Project Reference Site Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Table 5. Summary of Significant Endpoints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Table 6. Summary of Day 10 Survival Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Table 7. Summary of Day 10 Growth Data, Ash Free Dry Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Table 8. Summary of Day 10 Growth Data, Ash Free Dry Biomass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Table 9. Summary of Percent Emergence Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Table 10. Summary of Mean Time of Emergence Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Table 11. Summary of Water Qualities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Appendix A: Raw Data and Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14


TOXICOLOGICAL EVALUATIONOF SEDIMENT SAMPLES:

Ashland Port Ewen Site, New YorkChironomus riparius

Chronic Exposure Sediment Evaluation1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of chronic exposure partial life cycle toxicity tests conducted onsediment samples collected from the Ashland Port Ewen project site located in New York. Samples wereprovided by URS Corporation, Fort Washington, Pennsylvania. Testing was based on programs and protocolsdeveloped by the ASTM (2009) and US EPA (2000). The toxicity of the samples was assessed by conductinglong term, partial life cycle, survival and growth tests using the freshwater midge, Chironomus riparius. Toxicitytests and supporting analyses were performed at EnviroSystems, Incorporated (ESI), Hampton, NewHampshire.

Toxicity tests expose groups of organisms to environmental samples, a laboratory control and fieldreference sites for a specified period to assess potential impacts on a variety of endpoints, such as survival,growth or reproduction. Analysis of variance techniques are used to determine the relative toxicity of thesamples as compared to the laboratory control and/or field reference sites. Endpoints for this study includedsurvival, growth (measured as ash free dry weight and ash free dry biomass), percent emergence and meantime to emergence. 2.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1 General Methods, Biological EvaluationsToxicological and analytical protocols used in this program follow procedures outlined in Test Methods

for Measuring the Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates (ASTM 2009),Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants withFreshwater Invertebrates (US EPA 2000) and Standard Methods for the Examination of Water andWastewater, 20th Edition (APHA 1998). These protocols provide standard approaches for physical andchemical analysis and for the evaluation of toxicological effects of sediments on aquatic invertebrates.

2.2 Test SpeciesC. riparius were obtained from Aquatic Research Organisms, Hampton, New Hampshire. Egg cases

were shipped to ESI after they were deposited. At ESI egg cases were transferred to a culture vessel andplaced in an incubator. Observations and water additions were made daily until the assay was started. Oncelarvae hatched and left the egg casing, they were collected and added to the test vessels.

2.3 Test Samples and Laboratory Control Sediment

Sediment samples collected from the Ashland Port Ewen project site were received at ESI under chainof custody. Once received, samples were inspected to determine integrity, given unique sample numbers andlogged into the laboratory sample management database. Once logged in, the samples were placed in asecure refrigerated, 2 - 4 EC, storage area. A listing of sample sites, sample collection, and receipt informationis summarized in Table 1.

The control substrate was an artificial sediment prepared according to guidance presented in theEPA/ASTM method. Organic detritus from Chironomid cultures plus disintegrated paper pulp was used toprovide organic content. Overlying water for the sediment toxicity tests was natural surface water, collectedfrom the upper portion of the Taylor River watershed in Hampton Falls, New Hampshire. Use of naturalsurface water is recommended by the protocol (EPA 2000, ASTM 2009).

2.4 C. riparius Emergence AssayThe midge partial life cycle tests were conducted according to ASTM method E 1706-95 found in StandardTest Methods for Measuring the Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates(2009) and method 100.5 found in Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-


associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates (EPA 2000). The midge partial life cycle test isdivided into two exposure periods; an initial 10 day survival and growth evaluation followed by an emergencephase. Endpoints of the initial 10 day exposure were survival and growth, measured as both ash free dryweight and ash free dry biomass. Endpoints for the remainder of the assay included survival, percentemergence and mean time to emergence. The period of exposure for the assay is variable and treatmentsare terminated independently of one another, once seven days has passed without emergence of an adult fly.

Prior to test initiation, test sediments were homogenized under a nitrogen atmosphere. Sedimentswere placed in the test vessels and overlying water was immediately added. The vessels were leftundisturbed overnight to stabilize. During this period, the chambers received one volume addition daily. Onday 0 organisms were added to the test vessels below the water surface using a glass transfer pipet with theassistance of a dissecting microscope.

Test vessels were 400 mL glass beakers containing 100 mL of sediment and approximately 250 mLof overlying water. Test vessels were drilled at a consistent height above their bases and the hole coveredwith Nytex® screen. The screened hole facilitates water exchange while retaining test organisms. Vesselswere maintained in a water bath during the test. Depth of the water in the bath was set below the drain holein the test vessel to eliminate flow of water from the bath into the test vessel. Test chambers were randomlyplaced in the water bath after addition of test sediments. Placement locations were generated by the CETIS®software program. The randomization work sheets are included in the data appendix. The water bath wasmaintained in a limited access, temperature controlled room. Temperatures in the room and water bath wereindependently set at a temperature of 23EC. Temperature was recorded on an hourly frequency using atemperature logger placed in a surrogate vessel. The photoperiod in the test chamber was set at 16:8 hourlight:dark. Lighting was supplied by cool white florescent bulbs.

A total of 10 larvae were randomly selected from the pool of organisms and added to each treatment.Each treatment group included 12 replicates and a surrogate test chamber that was used to obtain waterqualities during the assay without disturbing the test animals. The surrogate chamber was treated the sameas actual test chambers with the addition of animals and food, but was not used to determine endpoint data.

Prior to the daily overlying water renewal, dissolved oxygen, pH, specific conductance and temperaturewere measured in the surrogate chamber for each treatment. Overlying water in each replicate was thenrenewed. The volume of water added to each test chamber was approximately two volumes. Waterexchanges were facilitated by use of a distribution system designed to provide equal, regulated flow to eachchamber. The system was activated manually by the addition of water during the assay. After overlying waterrenewal each replicate was fed 1 mL of 6 g/L Tetramin® flake fish food suspension. Alkalinity, ammonia andhardness of the overlying water were measured on days 0, 7, 14, 21 and 28. Additionally the pore water wassampled at the start and end of the assay to determine ammonia levels. Water quality records are availablein Appendix A.

After 10 days exposure, four replicates of each test treatment were terminated to collect data for theinitial survival and growth portion of the tests. Each test chamber was gently swirled to loosen the sedimentsand the test material was dumped onto an appropriately sized screen. The sediments were washed throughthe sieve using freshwater and material left on the screen was sorted to recover organisms. This processwas continued until the entire sample was evaluated. Surviving larvae were placed on tared weighing pans;partially and fully emerged organisms were recorded in survival counts but excluded in weight measurements.Pans were dried overnight at 104EC to obtain dry weight to the nearest 0.01 mg. The organisms were thenfired in a muffle furnace for two hours at 550 EC to obtain the ash free dry weight to the nearest 0.01 mg. Themean weight of surviving organisms was determined to assess growth.

The remaining 8 replicates of each treatment were covered with emergence traps. The emergencetraps were designed so that flies may emerge from the sediment and water without escaping. Traps weredesigned to allow for water exchange and ample airflow to the test vessel. Vessels were renewed and fedin the same manner as during the initial 10 day portion of the tests. Prior to daily water renewal, each vesselwas inspected for emerged flies. Emerged flies were counted on a daily basis. Instances of partialemergence were also recorded.


2.5 Statistical Analysis Survival, growth and emergence data were analyzed using CETIS® software to determine significant

differences between the test sediments and the laboratory control and reference sediments. Data sets wereevaluated to determine normality of distribution and homogeneity of sample variance. Data sets weresubsequently evaluated using the appropriate parametric or non-parametric Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)statistic. Pair-wise comparisons were made using the appropriate statistical evaluation. Endpoints evaluatedincluded; day 10 ash free dry weight and biomass, survival, mean emergence and mean time to emergence.Statistical difference was evaluated at α=0.05.

2.6 Quality ControlAs part of the laboratory quality control program, reference toxicant evaluations are conducted on a

regular basis for each test species. These results provide relative health and response data while allowingfor comparison with historic data sets. Results were within the range observed for this species and isconsistent with results obtained with Chironomus dilutus, a closely related species routinely evaluated.Results are summarized in Table 2.

2.7 Protocol DeviationsReview of data collected during this assay documented two deviations from protocol methods. First

there were instances where the number animals added to the test vessel at the start of the assay exceeded10 per replicate. The second deviation relates to temperature monitoring during the assay. The temperaturedata logger for the assay was pulled on Day 6 on 07/22/10 and was not replaced until Day 10 on 07/26/10,resulting in a loss of 4 days of hourly temperature readings. According to ESI’s SOP and the methoddescribed in the ASTM (2009), temperature should be monitored hourly during the assay. Since this isdescribed as a “should” statement and not a “must” statement, the data remains valid. Additionally, waterqualities observed during this time were within protocol limits and conditions in the laboratory remainedconsistent. It is likely that readings during the four days would have been similar to those observed duringthe remainder of the assay.

It is the opinion of ESI’s study director that these deviations did not adversely affect the outcome of theassay.

TABLE 1. Summary of Sample Collection Information. Ashland Port Ewen Site, New York. July 2010.

Sample Collected Sample ReceivedField ID ESI Code Designation Date Time Date TimePE-SQT-09 19820-008 reference 06/16/10 1000 06/18/10 1330PE-SQT-10 19820-009 reference 06/16/10 1300 06/18/10 1330PE-SQT-11 19820-010 reference 06/16/10 1600 06/18/10 1330PE-SQT-01 19820-001 test 06/14/10 1645 06/16/10 1100PE-SQT-02 19820-002 test 06/15/10 1315 06/16/10 1100PE-SQT-05 19820-003 test 06/15/10 1600 06/16/10 1100PE-SQT-06 19820-004 test 06/15/10 1000 06/16/10 1100PE-SQT-04 19820-005 test 06/17/10 1415 06/18/10 1330PE-SQT-07 19820-006 test 06/17/10 1200 06/18/10 1330PE-SQT-08 19820-007 test 06/17/10 0830 06/18/10 1330PE-SQT-03 19820-011 test 06/23/10 1430 06/24/10 1100


Table 2. Reference Toxicant Evaluation. Ashland Port Ewen Site, New York. July 2010.

Date Endpoint ValueHistoric Mean/

Central TendencyAcceptable

RangeReferenceToxicant

Chironomus riparius

07/26/10 Survival LC-50 2.59 - 1.2 - 300 Cadmium (mg/L)Milani et al., 2003 LC-50 0.02 - 1.2-300 Cadmium (mg/L)Chironomus dilutus

05/21/10 Survival LC-50 3.42 3.18 0.0 - 8.8 Cadmium (mg/L)

3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Laboratory Control and Project Reference Site PerformanceAt the end of the 10 day exposure period survival in the laboratory control treatment was 92.5% with

a coefficient of variation (CV) of 5.41%. The minimum test acceptability criteria for survival in the laboratorycontrol is $70%. The ash free dry weight was 0.8492 mg with a CV of 20.31%. The minimum acceptablecriteria for growth is a mean ash free dry weight (AFDW) of $0.48 mg/larvae after 10 days exposure. Thepercent emerged for the laboratory control was 86.9% with a CV of 15.97%. The recommended minimum forthe laboratory control is at least 50%. These criteria were met indicating that the organisms were healthy andnot stressed by handling. Table 4 provides a summary of assay acceptability criteria and laboratory controlachievement. Table 5 summarizes the reference site performance.

During daily water quality observations the temperature recorded for the assay had a mean value of23.2EC with a range of 21.4 to 24.6EC. Confirmation temperature data collected in a surrogate replicatedocumented a mean temperature of 23.5EC with a range of 21.2 to 25.5EC. Test acceptability criteria requiresa mean temperature of 23±1EC, with maximum temporary fluctuations of 23±3EC.

Table 3. Summary of Acceptable Endpoints and Measurements. Ashland Port Ewen Site, NewYork. July 2010.

Endpoint / Measurement Protocol Limit 19882

Mean Survival - Day 10 lab $ 70% % 92.5%Protocol Met Yes

Ash Free Dry Weight lab $ 0.48 mg mg/individual 0.8492Protocol Met Yes

Percent Emergence lab $ 50% % 86.9%Protocol Met Yes

Mean Time to Emergence Not Specified Days 13.56Protocol Met Not Specified

Temperaturemean: 23E±1EC daily / hourly 23.2 / 23.5minimum: 20EC daily / hourly 21.4 / 21.2maximum: 26EC daily / hourly 24.6 / 25.5

Protocol Met Yes / Yes


Table 4. Summary of Project Reference Site Performance. Ashland Port Ewen Site, New York. July2010.

Field ID ESI CodeMean

PercentSurvival

Ash Free DryWeight(mg)

Ash Free DryBiomass

(mg)Percent

EmergenceMean Time toEmergence

(Days)PE-SQT-09 19820-008 87.5% 0.6173 0.5502 88.8% 14.31PE-SQT-10 19820-009 97.5% 0.5403 0.5241 83.8% 14.46PE-SQT-11 19820-010 87.5% 0.6144 0.5292 60.0% 16.81

3.2 SummaryThis program utilized protocols developed by the U.S. EPA and ASTM to assess the potential

toxicological impacts that exposure to sediments from the Ashland Port Ewen project site would have onfreshwater invertebrates. Table 5 provides a summary of sample sites that demonstrated a negative effect,based on the finding of statistically significant reduction in an endpoint as compared to the laboratory controlor reference site. Tables 6 through 10 provide summaries of assay endpoints and detailed statistical resultsfor each sample location. Table 11 summarizes overlying water qualities measured during the test.Laboratory bench sheets, detailed summaries of survival, dry weights, emergence and associated statisticalsupport data are included in Appendix A.

Table 5. Summary of Significant Endpoints. Ashland Port Ewen Site, New York. July 2010.

Finding of Significant Difference(s) between Project Sites andLab Control(19820-000)

PE-SQT-09(19820-008)

PE-SQT-10(19820-009)

PE-SQT-11(19820-010)


Field ID ESI Code survi

val

ash f

ree dr

y wt

ash f

ree dr

y biom

ass

% em

ergen

cetim

e to e

merge

nce

survi

val

ash f

ree dr

y wt

ash f

ree dr

y biom

ass

% em

ergen

cetim

e to e

merge

nce

survi

val

ash f

ree dr

y wt

ash f

ree dr

y biom

ass

% em

ergen

cetim

e to e

merge

nce

survi

val

ash f

ree dr

y wt

ash f

ree dr

y biom

ass

% em

ergen

cetim

e to e

merge

nce

survi

val

ash f

ree dr

y wt

ash f

ree dr

y biom

ass

% em

ergen

cetim

e to e

merge

nce

PE-SQT-09 19820-008PE-SQT-10 19820-009PE-SQT-11 19820-010Comp Ref 19820-099PE-SQT-01 19820-001 X X X XPE-SQT-02 19820-002 XPE-SQT-05 19820-003 X X X X X X X X X X X X X XPE-SQT-06 19820-004 X X XPE-SQT-04 19820-005 X X X X X X X X X XPE-SQT-07 19820-006 X X XPE-SQT-08 19820-007 X X XPE-SQT-03 19820-011 X * X X X * X X X * X X X * X X X X X X

* No surviving organisms


4.0 REFERENCES

APHA. 1998. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th Edition. Washington D.C. ASTM. 2009. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Volume 11.05. Test Methods for Measuring the Toxicity of

Sediment-Associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates. E 1706-00. ASTM, Philadelphia.U.S. EPA. 2000. Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated

Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates. Second Edition. EPA/600-R-99/064.Milani D, Reynoldson TB,Borgmann U, and Kolasa J. 2003. The Relative Sensitivity of Four Benthic

Invertebrates to Metals in Spiked-Sediment Exposure and Application to Contaminated FieldSediment. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 4:845-854.


TABLE 6. Summary of Day 10 Survival Data: C. riparius. Ashland Port Ewen Site, New York. July2010.

Day 10 Survival SummaryField ID ESI Code Reps Mean Minimum Maximum CVLab Control 19820-000 4 92.5% 90.0% 100.0% 5.41%PE-SQT-09 19820-008 4 87.5% 80.0% 100.0% 10.94%PE-SQT-10 19820-009 4 97.5% 90.0% 100.0% 5.13%PE-SQT-11 19820-010 4 87.5% 80.0% 100.0% 10.94%Comp Ref 19820-099 12 90.83% 80.0% 100.0% 9.91%PE-SQT-01 19820-001 4 75.0% 60.0% 100.0% 23.09%PE-SQT-02 19820-002 4 72.5% 20.0% 100.0% 49.57%PE-SQT-05 19820-003 4 60.0% 10.0% 100.0% 65.26%PE-SQT-06 19820-004 4 97.5% 90.0% 100.0% 5.13%PE-SQT-04 19820-005 4 97.5% 90.0% 100.0% 5.13%PE-SQT-07 19820-006 4 95.0% 80.0% 100.0% 10.53%PE-SQT-08 19820-007 4 82.5% 70.0% 90.0% 11.61%PE-SQT-03 19820-011 4 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.00%



PE-SQT-09(19820-008)

PE-SQT-10(19820-009)

PE-SQT-11(19820-010)


Field ID ESI Code Mean p Value p Value p Value p Value p ValueLab Control 19820-000 92.5% - - - - - - - - - -PE-SQT-09 19820-008 87.5% 0.1951 No - - - - - - - -PE-SQT-10 19820-009 97.5% 0.8965 No 0.9432 No - - - - - -PE-SQT-11 19820-010 87.5% 0.1951 No 0.5000 No 0.0568 No - - - -Comp Ref 19820-099 90.8% - - - - - - - - - -PE-SQT-01 19820-001 75.0% 0.0501 No 0.1267 No 0.0234 Yes 0.1267 No 0.0147 YesPE-SQT-02 19820-002 72.5% 0.1754 No* 0.2253 No* 0.1310 No* 0.2253 No* 0.1935 NoPE-SQT-05 19820-003 60.0% 0.0991 No 0.1107 No 0.0768 No 0.1107 No 0.1082 NoPE-SQT-06 19820-004 97.5% 0.8965 No 0.9432 No 0.4429 No 0.9432 No 0.9068 NoPE-SQT-04 19820-005 97.5% 0.8965 No 0.9432 No 0.4429 No 0.9432 No 0.9068 NoPE-SQT-07 19820-006 95.0% 0.6648 No 0.8399 No 0.4429 No 0.8399 No 0.7764 NoPE-SQT-08 19820-007 82.5% 0.0568 No 0.2440 No 0.0161 Yes 0.2440 No 0.1060 NoPE-SQT-03 19820-011 0.0% 0.0143 Yes* <0.0001 Yes 0.0143 Yes* <0.0001 Yes 0.0005 Yes

Note:“*” Indicates cases where a statistical outlier was detected and statistical comparisons were madewith and without the outlier. Instances where the calculated p Value resulted in a different findingwith respect to rejection, both p values are presented.


TABLE 7. Summary of Day 10 Growth Data, Ash Free Dry Weight: C. riparius. Ashland Port EwenSite, New York. July 2010.

Day 10 Ash Free Dry Weight (mg) SummaryField ID ESI Code Reps Mean Minimum Maximum CV

Lab Control 19820-000 4 0.8492 0.6912 1.0570 20.31%PE-SQT-09 19820-008 4 0.6173 0.4275 0.7830 24.94%PE-SQT-10 19820-009 4 0.5403 0.4592 0.6456 14.33%PE-SQT-11 19820-010 4 0.6144 0.3458 0.8156 34.61%Comp Ref 19820-099 12 0.5907 0.3458 0.8156 25.01%PE-SQT-01 19820-001 4 0.7074 0.5537 0.8814 18.99%PE-SQT-02 19820-002 4 0.7157 0.6218 0.7788 9.60%PE-SQT-05 19820-003 4 0.2282 0.0100 0.4100 72.15%PE-SQT-06 19820-004 4 0.5034 0.4056 0.5800 16.04%PE-SQT-04 19820-005 4 0.3958 0.2987 0.5322 28.14%PE-SQT-07 19820-006 4 0.5842 0.5225 0.6244 7.54%PE-SQT-08 19820-007 4 0.6605 0.4989 0.8257 24.53%PE-SQT-03 19820-011 NS - - - -

Day 10 Ash Free Dry Weight(mg) Statistical Analysis


PE-SQT-09(19820-008)

PE-SQT-10(19820-009)

PE-SQT-11(19820-010)


Field ID ESI Code Mean p Value p Value p Value p Value p ValueLab Control 19820-000 0.8492 - - - - - - - - - -PE-SQT-09 19820-008 0.6173 0.0458 Yes - - - - - - - -PE-SQT-10 19820-009 0.5403 0.0085 Yes 0.2028 No - - - - - -PE-SQT-11 19820-010 0.6144 0.0686 No 0.4915 No 0.7318 No - - - -Comp Ref 19820-099 0.5907 - - - - - - - - - -PE-SQT-01 19820-001 0.7074 0.1211 No 0.7940 No 0.9628 No 0.7562 No 0.9076 NoPE-SQT-02 19820-002 0.7157 0.1002 No 0.8563 No 0.9927 No 0.8002 No 0.9349 NoPE-SQT-05 19820-003 0.2282 0.0010 Yes 0.0068 Yes 0.0070 Yes 0.0142 Yes 0.0005 YesPE-SQT-06 19820-004 0.5034 0.0055 Yes 0.1191 No 0.2674 No 0.1834 No 0.1429 NoPE-SQT-04 19820-005 0.3958 0.0022 Yes 0.0293 Yes 0.0386 Yes 0.0592 No 0.0155 YesPE-SQT-07 19820-006 0.5842 0.0124 Yes 0.3470 No 0.8193 No 0.3952 No 0.4671 NoPE-SQT-08 19820-007 0.6605 0.0810 No 0.6438 No 0.8856 No 0.6291 No 0.7820 NoPE-SQT-03 19820-011 NS - - - - - - - - - -



TABLE 8. Summary of Day 10 Growth Data, Ash Free Dry Biomass: C. riparius. Ashland Port EwenSite, New York. July 2010.

Day 10 Ash Free Dry Biomass (mg) SummaryField ID ESI Code Reps Mean Minimum Maximum CVLab Control 19820-000 4 0.7353 0.6470 0.9510 19.74%PE-SQT-09 19820-008 4 0.5502 0.3420 0.7830 35.05%PE-SQT-10 19820-009 4 0.5241 0.4592 0.5810 9.54%PE-SQT-11 19820-010 4 0.5292 0.3458 0.7340 32.56%Comp Ref 19820-099 12 0.5345 0.3420 0.7830 25.83%PE-SQT-01 19820-001 4 0.4500 0.2769 0.6170 31.44%PE-SQT-02 19820-002 4 0.5160 0.1420 0.6770 48.58%PE-SQT-05 19820-003 4 0.1743 0.0010 0.3280 81.70%PE-SQT-06 19820-004 4 0.4933 0.3650 0.5800 19.84%PE-SQT-04 19820-005 4 0.3825 0.2987 0.4790 23.78%PE-SQT-07 19820-006 4 0.5425 0.4180 0.6040 15.62%PE-SQT-08 19820-007 4 0.5202 0.4370 0.6170 17.44%PE-SQT-03 19820-011 NS - - - -

Day 10 Ash Free Dry Biomass(mg) Statistical Analysis


PE-SQT-09(19820-008)

PE-SQT-10(19820-009)

PE-SQT-11(19820-010)


Field ID ESI Code Mean p Value p Value p Value p Value p ValueLab Control 19820-000 0.7353 - - - - - - - - - -PE-SQT-09 19820-008 0.5502 0.0881 No - - - - - - - -PE-SQT-10 19820-009 0.5241 0.0166 Yes* 0.4009 No - - - - - -PE-SQT-11 19820-010 0.5292 0.0585 No 0.4380 No 0.5217 No - - - -Comp Ref 19820-099 0.5345 - - - - - - - - - -PE-SQT-01 19820-001 0.4500 0.0153 Yes 0.2170 No 0.1806 No 0.2519 No 0.1546 NoPE-SQT-02 19820-002 0.5160 0.0903 No 0.4177 No 0.4756 No 0.4667 No 0.4257 NoPE-SQT-05 19820-003 0.1743 0.0007 Yes 0.0101 Yes 0.9914 No 0.0096 Yes 0.0003 YesPE-SQT-06 19820-004 0.4933 0.0163 Yes 0.3087 No 0.0018 Yes 0.3647 No 0.2964 NoPE-SQT-04 19820-005 0.3825 0.0031 Yes 0.0834 No 0.2976 No 0.0914 No 0.0307 YesPE-SQT-07 19820-006 0.5425 0.0308 Yes 0.4719 No 0.0171 Yes 0.5528 No 0.5420 NoPE-SQT-08 19820-007 0.5202 0.0229 Yes 0.3939 No 0.6392 No 0.4648 No 0.4256 NoPE-SQT-03 19820-011 0.0000 0.0143 Yes* 0.0053 Yes 0.4715 No 0.0043 Yes <0.0001 Yes



TABLE 9. Summary of Percent Emergence Data: C. riparius. Ashland Port Ewen Site, New York. July2010.

Percent Emergence SummaryField ID ESI Code Reps Mean Minimum Maximum CV

Lab Control 19820-000 8 86.9% 65.0% 100.0% 15.97%PE-SQT-09 19820-008 8 88.8% 60.0% 100.0% 15.28%PE-SQT-10 19820-009 8 83.8% 50.0% 100.0% 20.12%PE-SQT-11 19820-010 8 60.0% 0.0% 100.0% 58.93%Comp Ref 19820-099 24 77.5% 0.0% 100.0% 33.82%PE-SQT-01 19820-001 8 83.8% 50.0% 100.0% 22.96%PE-SQT-02 19820-002 8 87.5% 40.0% 100.0% 25.00%PE-SQT-05 19820-003 8 88.8% 75.0% 100.0% 10.75%PE-SQT-06 19820-004 8 87.5% 50.0% 100.0% 21.81%PE-SQT-04 19820-005 8 94.4% 80.0% 100.0% 7.72%PE-SQT-07 19820-006 8 96.3% 70.0% 100.0% 11.02%PE-SQT-08 19820-007 8 95.0% 85.0% 100.0% 6.29%PE-SQT-03 19820-011 8 10.0% 0.0% 50.0% 177.30%

Percent Emergence StatisticalAnalysis


PE-SQT-09(19820-008)

PE-SQT-10(19820-009)

PE-SQT-11(19820-010)


Field ID ESI Code Mean p Value p Value p Value p Value p ValueLab Control 19820-000 86.9% - - - - - - - - - -PE-SQT-09 19820-008 88.8% 0.6057 No - - - - - - - -PE-SQT-10 19820-009 83.8% 0.3458 No 0.2619 No - - - - - -PE-SQT-11 19820-010 60.0% 0.0326 Yes 0.0249 Yes 0.0542 No - - - -Comp Ref 19820-099 77.5% - - - - - - - - - -PE-SQT-01 19820-001 83.8% 0.3574 No 0.2787 No 0.5608 No 0.9414 No 0.7263 NoPE-SQT-02 19820-002 87.5% 0.7131 No 0.6773 No 0.8089 No 0.9588 No 0.9241 NoPE-SQT-05 19820-003 88.8% 0.6213 No 0.5000 No 0.7614 No 0.9714 No 0.8009 NoPE-SQT-06 19820-004 87.5% 0.6395 No 0.6008 No 0.7473 No 0.9633 No 0.8893 NoPE-SQT-04 19820-005 94.4% 0.9014 No 0.8405 No 0.9380 No 0.9845 No 0.9768 NoPE-SQT-07 19820-006 96.3% 0.9348 No 0.9197 No 0.9675 No 0.9880 No 0.9945 NoPE-SQT-08 19820-007 95.0% 0.9248 No 0.8736 No 0.9516 No 0.9860 No 0.9801 NoPE-SQT-03 19820-011 10.0% <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 Yes <0.0001 Yes 0.0015 Yes 0.0001 Yes


TABLE 10. Summary of Time of Emergence Data: C. riparius. Ashland Port Ewen Site, New York. July2010.

Mean Time of Emergence(Days) SummaryField ID ESI Code Reps Mean Minimum Maximum CVLab Control 19820-000 8 13.56 11.78 14.50 6.67%PE-SQT-09 19820-008 8 14.31 13.17 16.25 6.84%PE-SQT-10 19820-009 8 14.46 13.89 14.91 2.76%PE-SQT-11 19820-010 8 16.81 14.13 19.00 9.76%Comp Ref 19820-099 24 15.12 13.17 19.00 10.23%PE-SQT-01 19820-001 8 14.93 13.20 18.82 11.87%PE-SQT-02 19820-002 8 15.44 13.20 19.75 13.37%PE-SQT-05 19820-003 8 16.61 13.56 22.47 17.33%PE-SQT-06 19820-004 8 14.32 13.86 15.08 3.53%PE-SQT-04 19820-005 8 15.82 14.25 21.33 14.43%PE-SQT-07 19820-006 8 15.90 13.55 21.60 16.12%PE-SQT-08 19820-007 8 15.36 13.44 17.63 9.55%PE-SQT-03 19820-011 8 16.33 14.00 21.00 24.74%

Mean Time of Emergence(Days) Statistical Analysis


PE-SQT-09(19820-008)

PE-SQT-10(19820-009)

PE-SQT-11(19820-010)


Field ID ESI Code Mean p Value p Value p Value p Value p ValueLab Control 19820-000 13.56 - - - - - - - - - -PE-SQT-09 19820-008 14.31 0.0665 No - - - - - - - -PE-SQT-10 19820-009 14.46 0.0113 Yes 0.3531 No - - - - - -PE-SQT-11 19820-010 16.81 0.0002 Yes 0.0015 Yes 0.0050 Yes - - - -Comp Ref 19820-099 15.12 - - - - - - - - - -PE-SQT-01 19820-001 14.93 0.0357 Yes 0.2001 No 0.5204 No 0.9729 No 0.6984 NoPE-SQT-02 19820-002 15.44 0.0166 Yes 0.0918 No 0.1131 No 0.9081 No 0.3590 NoPE-SQT-05 19820-003 16.61 0.0106 Yes 0.0254 Yes 0.0372 Yes 0.5634 No 0.0371 YesPE-SQT-06 19820-004 14.32 0.0290 Yes 0.4950 No 0.7241 No 0.9958 No 0.8843 NoPE-SQT-04 19820-005 15.82 0.0003 Yes 0.0190 Yes 0.0190 Yes 0.8205 No 0.1114 NoPE-SQT-07 19820-006 15.90 0.0035 Yes 0.0652 No 0.1172 No 0.7821 No 0.2351 NoPE-SQT-08 19820-007 15.36 0.0052 Yes 0.0570 No 0.0649 No 0.9526 No 0.3515 NoPE-SQT-03 19820-011 16.33 0.1802 No 0.2411 No 0.2532 No 0.6066 No 0.5480 No


Table 11. Summary of Water Qualities: C. riparius. Ashland Port Ewen Site, New York. July 2010.


Lab Control 19820-000 000 0 250 43 50 0.12PE-SQT-01 19820-001 001 0 222 42 46 1.3PE-SQT-02 19820-002 002 0 192 31 44 <0.1PE-SQT-05 19820-003 003 0 211 45 53 0.38PE-SQT-06 19820-004 004 0 201 33 43 <0.1PE-SQT-04 19820-005 005 0 205 37 45 0.12PE-SQT-07 19820-006 006 0 216 44 51 0.19PE-SQT-08 19820-007 007 0 210 44 49 0.53PE-SQT-09 19820-008 008 0 192 35 42 <0.1PE-SQT-10 19820-009 009 0 195 37 44 0.36PE-SQT-11 19820-010 010 0 190 36 41 0.5PE-SQT-03 19820-011 011 0 583 <2 62 0.78

Lab Control 19820-000 000 7 404 91 100 0.78PE-SQT-01 19820-001 001 7 363 78 87 1.3PE-SQT-02 19820-002 002 7 356 78 87 0.8PE-SQT-05 19820-003 003 7 372 88 97 0.14PE-SQT-06 19820-004 004 7 362 73 87 0.67PE-SQT-04 19820-005 005 7 365 77 90 0.79PE-SQT-07 19820-006 006 7 383 89 100 0.18PE-SQT-08 19820-007 007 7 363 81 91 0.31PE-SQT-09 19820-008 008 7 355 77 87 0.23PE-SQT-10 19820-009 009 7 356 80 90 0.24PE-SQT-11 19820-010 010 7 341 72 81 0.67PE-SQT-03 19820-011 011 7 446 <2 110 0.14

Lab Control 19820-000 000 14 378 87 100 0.17PE-SQT-01 19820-001 001 14 332 76 91 <0.1PE-SQT-02 19820-002 002 14 317 70 84 <0.1PE-SQT-05 19820-003 003 14 341 86 97 <0.1PE-SQT-06 19820-004 004 14 343 72 91 0.3PE-SQT-04 19820-005 005 14 332 80 90 <0.1PE-SQT-07 19820-006 006 14 351 85 98 <0.1PE-SQT-08 19820-007 007 14 320 75 84 <0.1PE-SQT-09 19820-008 008 14 329 80 89 <0.1PE-SQT-10 19820-009 009 14 334 79 92 0.18PE-SQT-11 19820-010 010 14 326 75 89 <0.1PE-SQT-03 19820-011 011 14 370 49 100 0.35

Lab Control 19820-000 000 21 375 94 98 <0.1PE-SQT-01 19820-001 001 21 345 85 92 <0.1PE-SQT-02 19820-002 002 21 346 80 92 <0.1PE-SQT-05 19820-003 003 21 343 91 98 <0.1PE-SQT-06 19820-004 004 21 350 86 94 <0.1PE-SQT-04 19820-005 005 21 343 82 90 <0.1PE-SQT-07 19820-006 006 21 356 91 98 <0.1PE-SQT-08 19820-007 007 21 350 98 95 <0.1PE-SQT-09 19820-008 008 21 346 87 97 <0.1



PE-SQT-10 19820-009 009 21 348 82 93 <0.1PE-SQT-11 19820-010 010 21 332 74 88 <0.1PE-SQT-03 19820-011 011 21 339 56 85 <0.1

Lab Control 19820-000 000 28 394 84 93 <0.15PE-SQT-01 19820-001 001 28 346 85 95 <0.15PE-SQT-02 19820-002 002 28 343 80 93 <0.15PE-SQT-05 19820-003 003 28 348 84 95 <0.15PE-SQT-06 19820-004 004 28 354 85 97 <0.15PE-SQT-04 19820-005 005 28 346 88 96 <0.15PE-SQT-07 19820-006 006 28 361 94 100 <0.15PE-SQT-08 19820-007 007 28 356 93 100 <0.15PE-SQT-09 19820-008 008 28 341 85 94 <0.15PE-SQT-10 19820-009 009 28 343 86 94 <0.15PE-SQT-11 19820-010 010 28 339 83 87 <0.15PE-SQT-03 19820-011 011 28 324 60 82 <0.15

Additional water quality data are provided in Appendix A.


APPENDIX A: RAW DATA & STATISTICAL SUPPORT

Contents Number of

PagesC. riparius Emergence Sediment Toxicity Evaluation

Daily Observations Check List 3YSI 556 MPS Sample Reading Order 1Daily Water Quality Summary 9CETIS Worksheets 3Day 10 Emergence Sediment Toxicity Organism Recovery Bench Sheets 1Day 10 Dry Weight Data Sheets 2Daily Emergence Bench Sheets 72

Statistical Analysis ReportsDay 10 Summary and Survival Statistical Analysis 59Day 10 Ash Free Dry Weight Statistical Analysis 44Day 10 Ash Free Dry Biomass Statistical Analysis 52Percent Emergence Statistical Analysis 53Mean Time to Emergence Statistical Analysis 49

Analytical Chemistry Data SummariesOverlying Water Alkalinity 2Overlying Water Hardness 2Overlying Water Ammonia 2Sediment Total Volatile Solids 1Pore Water Ammonia 1

Temperature ProfileOrganism History Record 1Sample Receipt Logs and Chain of Custody Records 21E-mail Communications: Reference Site Identification 1

Total Appendix Pages 379

APPENDIX C

TABLE C-1

SQT SEDIMENT - SUMMARY OF INORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK


Samples

Number of

Detections

Metals

Aluminum mg/kg 3 3 18,100.0J'

14,200.0J'

15,200.0J'

Antimony mg/kg 3 3 0.36B' J'

0.39B' J'

0.22B' J'

Arsenic mg/kg 3 3 4.9 7 3.2

Barium mg/kg 3 3 208 192 192

Beryllium mg/kg 3 3 1.5 1.3 0.97

Cadmium mg/kg 12 12 0.84 0.83 0.85 0.22 3.1 2 26.6 8.4 3.3 2.3 2 1.1

Calcium mg/kg 3 3 18,200.0 25,600.0 7,210.0

Chromium mg/kg 3 3 18.2J'

16.2J'

17.4J'

Cobalt mg/kg 3 3 5.5 5 5.6

Copper mg/kg 12 12 702.0J'

524.0J'

593.0J'

12,600.0J'

8,070.0J'

1,790.0J'

18,800.0J'

4,390.0J'

2,300.0J'

68.0J'

68.4J'

37.2J'

Iron mg/kg 3 3 15,000.0 18,600.0 14,100.0

Lead mg/kg 12 12 251.0 592.0 641.0 1,850.0J'

353.0 2,060.0 474.0 224.0 128.0 58.1 56.7 36.2

Magnesium mg/kg 3 3 2,260.0 1,500.0 2,400.0

Manganese mg/kg 3 3 223.0 134.0 217.0

Mercury mg/kg 12 12 57.4 8.3 8.0 61.1 27.8 3.5 82.4 12.2 24.8 0.29 0.32 0.19

Nickel mg/kg 3 3 22.3J'

23.3J'

16.6J'

Potassium mg/kg 3 3 820.0 603.0 876.0

Selenium mg/kg 12 12 35.6 71.0 69.4 198.0 38.6 170.0 78.2 33.2 16.4 8.4 11.0 5.2

Silver mg/kg 3 3 0.32 0.33 0.20

Sodium mg/kg 3 3 301.0 376.0 129.0

Thallium mg/kg 3 3 0.26 0.22 0.24

Vanadium mg/kg 3 3 35.6 34.7 25.5

Zinc mg/kg 12 12 174.0 150.0 143.0 26.2 1,270.0 246.0 2,110.0 623.0 404.0 85.9 81.3 68.3


Percent Solids % 12 12 24.0 21.2 21.0 41.9 25.7 18.3 19.9 19.0 23.6 21.0 23.5 39.3

Total organic carbon % 12 12 6.64 4.32 11.5 5.57 5.42 6.52 10.6 8.35 4.93 21.4 28.1 11.8






PE-SQT-11PE-SQT-01 PE-SQT-02 PE-SQT-02 DUP PE-SQT-03 PE-SQT-04 PE-SQT-05 PE-SQT-06 PE-SQT-07 PE-SQT-08 PE-SQT-09 PE-SQT-10

TABLE C-2

REFERENCE SQT SEDIMENT - SUMMARY OF ORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK


Samples

Number of

Detections

Organochlorine Pesticides

4,4'-DDD µg/kg 4 0 4 U 4 U 4 U 3 U

4,4'-DDE µg/kg 4 4 4 8 9 3 PG''

4,4'-DDT µg/kg 4 0 4 U 4 U 4 U 3 U

Aldrin µg/kg 4 0 4 U 4 U 4 U 6 U

alpha-BHC µg/kg 4 1 1 J'' PG'' 4 U 4 U 3 U

alpha-Chlordane µg/kg 4 0 4 U 4 U 4 U 3 U

beta-BHC µg/kg 4 0 4 U 4 U 4 U 3 U

delta-BHC µg/kg 4 0 4 U 4 U 4 U 3 U

Dieldrin µg/kg 4 1 4 U 4 U 4 U 0.42 J'' PG''

Endosulfan I µg/kg 4 0 4 U 4 U 4 U 3 U

Endosulfan II µg/kg 4 0 4 U 4 U 4 U 3 U

Endosulfan sulfate µg/kg 4 0 4 U 4 U 4 U 3 U

Endrin µg/kg 4 1 4 U 4 U 4 U 1 J'' PG''

Endrin aldehyde µg/kg 4 0 4 U 4 U 4 U 3 U

Endrin ketone µg/kg 4 0 4 U 4 U 4 U 3 U

gamma-BHC µg/kg 4 4 2 J'' PG'' 2 J'' PG'' 1 J'' PG'' 1 J'' PG''

gamma-Chlordane µg/kg 4 0 4 U 4 U 4 U 3 U

Heptachlor µg/kg 4 0 4 U 4 U 4 U 3 U

Heptachlor epoxide µg/kg 4 0 4 U 4 U 4 U 3 U

Methoxychlor µg/kg 4 0 8 U 8 U 7 U 5 U

Toxaphene µg/kg 4 0 160 U 170 U 150 U 100 U

Volatile Organic Compounds

1,1,1-Trichloroethane µg/kg 4 0 24 U 32 U 33 U 13 U

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane µg/kg 4 0 24 U 32 U 33 U 13 U

1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane µg/kg 4 0 24 U 32 U 33 U 13 U

1,1,2-Trichloroethane µg/kg 4 0 24 U 32 U 33 U 13 U

1,1-Dichloroethane µg/kg 4 0 24 U 32 U 33 U 13 U

1,1-Dichloroethene µg/kg 4 0 24 U 32 U 33 U 13 U

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene µg/kg 4 0 24 U 32 U 33 U 13 U

1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane µg/kg 4 0 24 U 32 U 33 U 13 U

1,2-Dibromoethane µg/kg 4 0 24 U 32 U 33 U 13 U

1,2-Dichlorobenzene µg/kg 4 0 24 U 32 U 33 U 13 U

1,2-Dichloroethane µg/kg 4 0 24 U 32 U 33 U 13 U

1,2-Dichloropropane µg/kg 4 0 24 U 32 U 33 U 13 U



2-Butanone µg/kg 4 0 24 U 32 U 33 U 13 U

2-Hexanone µg/kg 4 0 24 U 32 U 33 U 13 U

4-Methyl-2-pentanone µg/kg 4 0 24 U 32 U 33 U 13 U

Acetone µg/kg 4 1 95 U 41 J'' 130 U 51 U

Benzene µg/kg 4 0 24 U 32 U 33 U 13 U

Bromodichloromethane µg/kg 4 0 24 U 32 U 33 U 13 U

Bromoform µg/kg 4 0 24 U 32 U 33 U 13 U

Bromomethane µg/kg 4 0 24 U 32 U 33 U 13 U

Carbon disulfide µg/kg 4 0 24 U 32 U 33 U 13 U

Carbon tetrachloride µg/kg 4 0 24 U 32 U 33 U 13 U

Chlorobenzene µg/kg 4 0 24 U 32 U 33 U 13 U

Chloroethane µg/kg 4 0 24 U 32 U 33 U 13 U

Chloroform µg/kg 4 0 24 U 32 U 33 U 13 U

Chloromethane µg/kg 4 0 24 U 32 U 33 U 13 U

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene µg/kg 4 0 24 U 32 U 33 U 13 U

cis-1,3-Dichloropropene µg/kg 4 0 24 U 32 U 33 U 13 U

Cyclohexane µg/kg 4 0 24 U 32 U 33 U 13 U

Dibromochloromethane µg/kg 4 0 24 U 32 U 33 U 13 U

Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/kg 4 0 24 U 32 U 33 U 13 U

Ethylbenzene µg/kg 4 0 24 U 32 U 33 U 13 U

Isopropylbenzene µg/kg 4 0 24 U 32 U 33 U 13 U

Methyl acetate µg/kg 4 0 24 U 32 U 33 U 13 U

Methyl tert-butyl ether µg/kg 4 0 24 U 32 U 33 U 13 U

Methylcyclohexane µg/kg 4 0 24 U 32 U 33 U 13 U

PE-SQT-09 PE-SQT-10 PE-SQT-10-DUP PE-SQT-11

TABLE C-2




PORT EWEN, NEW YORK


Samples

Number of

DetectionsPE-SQT-09 PE-SQT-10 PE-SQT-10-DUP PE-SQT-11

Methylene chloride µg/kg 4 0 24 U 32 U 33 U 13 U

Styrene µg/kg 4 0 24 U 32 U 33 U 13 U

Tetrachloroethene µg/kg 4 0 24 U 32 U 33 U 13 U

Toluene µg/kg 4 2 24 U 7 J'' 7 J'' 13 U

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene µg/kg 4 0 24 U 32 U 33 U 13 U

trans-1,3-Dichloropropene µg/kg 4 0 24 U 32 U 33 U 13 U

Trichloroethene µg/kg 4 0 24 U 32 U 33 U 13 U

Trichlorofluoromethane µg/kg 4 0 24 U 32 U 33 U 13 U

Vinyl chloride µg/kg 4 0 24 U 32 U 33 U 13 U

Xylenes µg/kg 4 3 71 U 96 100 39

Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds

1,1'-Biphenyl µg/kg 4 0 1,500 U 1,700 U 1,500 U 1,000 U

2,2'-oxybis(1-Chloropropane) µg/kg 4 0 310 U 350 U 300 U 200 U

2,4,5-Trichlorophenol µg/kg 4 0 1,500 U 1,700 U 1,500 U 1,000 U

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol µg/kg 4 0 1,500 U 1,700 U 1,500 U 1,000 U

2,4-Dichlorophenol µg/kg 4 0 310 U 350 U 300 U 200 U

2,4-Dimethylphenol µg/kg 4 0 1,500 U 1,700 U 1,500 U 1,000 U

2,4-Dinitrophenol µg/kg 4 0 7,900 U 8,800 U 7,600 U 5,200 U

2,4-Dinitrotoluene µg/kg 4 0 1,500 U 1,700 U 1,500 U 1,000 U

2,6-Dinitrotoluene µg/kg 4 0 1,500 U 1,700 U 1,500 U 1,000 U

2-Chloronaphthalene µg/kg 4 0 310 U 350 U 300 U 200 U

2-Chlorophenol µg/kg 4 0 1,500 U 1,700 U 1,500 U 1,000 U

2-Methylnaphthalene µg/kg 4 0 310 U 350 U 300 U 200 U

2-Methylphenol µg/kg 4 0 1,500 U 1,700 U 1,500 U 1,000 U

2-Nitroaniline µg/kg 4 0 7,900 U 8,800 U 7,600 U 5,200 U

2-Nitrophenol µg/kg 4 0 1,500 U 1,700 U 1,500 U 1,000 U

3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine µg/kg 4 0 1,500 U 1,700 U 1,500 U 1,000 U


4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol µg/kg 4 0 7,900 U 8,800 U 7,600 U 5,200 U

4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether µg/kg 4 0 1,500 U 1,700 U 1,500 U 1,000 U

4-Chloro-3-methylphenol µg/kg 4 0 1,500 U 1,700 U 1,500 U 1,000 U

4-Chloroaniline µg/kg 4 0 1,500 U 1,700 U 1,500 U 1,000 U

4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether µg/kg 4 0 1,500 U 1,700 U 1,500 U 1,000 U

4-Methylphenol µg/kg 4 0 1,500 U 1,700 U 1,500 U 1,000 U


4-Nitrophenol µg/kg 4 0 7,900 U 8,800 U 7,600 U 5,200 U

Acenaphthene µg/kg 4 0 310 U 350 U 300 U 200 U

Acenaphthylene µg/kg 4 0 310 U 350 U 300 U 200 U

Acetophenone µg/kg 4 0 1,500 U 1,700 U 1,500 U 1,000 U

Anthracene µg/kg 4 0 310 U 350 U 300 U 200 U

Atrazine µg/kg 4 0 1,500 U 1,700 U 1,500 U 1,000 U

Benzaldehyde µg/kg 4 1 1,500 U 2,000 1,500 U 1,000 U

Benzo(a)anthracene µg/kg 4 0 310 U 350 U 300 U 200 U

Benzo(a)pyrene µg/kg 4 0 310 U 350 U 300 U 200 U

Benzo(b)fluoranthene µg/kg 4 0 310 U 350 U 300 U 200 U

Benzo(ghi)perylene µg/kg 4 0 310 U 350 U 300 U 200 U

Benzo(k)fluoranthene µg/kg 4 0 310 U 350 U 300 U 200 U

bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane µg/kg 4 0 1,500 U 1,700 U 1,500 U 1,000 U

bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether µg/kg 4 0 310 U 350 U 300 U 200 U

bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate µg/kg 4 0 3,100 U 3,500 U 3,000 U 2,000 U

Butyl benzyl phthalate µg/kg 4 1 210 J'' 1,700 U 1,500 U 1,000 U

Caprolactam µg/kg 4 0 7,900 U 8,800 U 7,600 U 5,200 U

Carbazole µg/kg 4 0 310 U 350 U 300 U 200 U

Chrysene µg/kg 4 0 310 U 350 U 300 U 200 U

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene µg/kg 4 0 310 U 350 U 300 U 200 U

Dibenzofuran µg/kg 4 0 1,500 U 1,700 U 1,500 U 1,000 U

Diethyl phthalate µg/kg 4 0 1,500 U 1,700 U 1,500 U 1,000 U

Dimethyl phthalate µg/kg 4 0 1,500 U 1,700 U 1,500 U 1,000 U

Di-n-butyl phthalate µg/kg 4 0 1,500 U 1,700 U 1,500 U 1,000 U

Di-n-octyl phthalate µg/kg 4 0 1,500 U 1,700 U 1,500 U 1,000 U

Fluoranthene µg/kg 4 2 310 U 49 J'' 48 J'' 200 U

TABLE C-2




PORT EWEN, NEW YORK


Samples

Number of

DetectionsPE-SQT-09 PE-SQT-10 PE-SQT-10-DUP PE-SQT-11

Fluorene µg/kg 4 0 310 U 350 U 300 U 200 U

Hexachlorobenzene µg/kg 4 0 310 U 350 U 300 U 200 U

Hexachlorobutadiene µg/kg 4 0 310 U 350 U 300 U 200 U

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene µg/kg 4 0 1,500 U 1,700 U 1,500 U 1,000 U

Hexachloroethane µg/kg 4 0 1,500 U 1,700 U 1,500 U 1,000 U

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene µg/kg 4 0 310 U 350 U 300 U 200 U

Isophorone µg/kg 4 0 1,500 U 1,700 U 1,500 U 1,000 U

Naphthalene µg/kg 4 0 310 U 350 U 300 U 200 U

Nitrobenzene µg/kg 4 0 3,100 U 3,500 U 3,000 U 2,000 U

N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine µg/kg 4 0 310 U 350 U 300 U 200 U

N-Nitrosodiphenylamine µg/kg 4 0 1,500 U 1,700 U 1,500 U 1,000 U

Pentachlorophenol µg/kg 4 0 1,500 U 1,700 U 1,500 U 1,000 U

Phenanthrene µg/kg 4 1 310 U 57 J'' 300 U 200 U

Phenol µg/kg 4 0 310 U 350 U 300 U 200 U

Pyrene µg/kg 4 2 310 U 58 J'' 47 J'' 200 U

Notes:PG''

Front and rear chromatography columns display >40% differenceJ'' Estimated result; less than the RL

U Result is a non-detect < the detection limitB'' Method blank contamination

TABLE C-3

DOWNSTREAM SEDIMENT STATIONS - SUMMARY OF INORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Analyte UnitNumber of

Samples

Number of

Detections

Metals

Cadmium mg/kg 6 6 1.9 1 1.7 E' 0.45 0.78 0.69

Copper mg/kg 6 6 2,020 2,440 1,410 246 179 156

Lead mg/kg 6 6 77.3 51.4 52.3 25.9 40.6 37

Mercury mg/kg 6 6 25.5 45.3 25.4 3.4 1.1 1.4

Selenium mg/kg 6 6 7.7 4.3 5.1 E' 1.3 2 1.9

Zinc mg/kg 6 6 270 249 226 89.3 185 172


Percent Solids % 6 6 17.2 40.6 32.4 61 44.2 46.7

Total Organic Carbon % 6 6 7.14 4.25 7.75 2.08 4.82 3.46

Notes:U Result is a non-detect < the detection limit (DL)


PE-DNS-SD-04

(0-1.0)-DUP

PE-DNS-SD-01

(0-1.0)

PE-DNS-SD-01

(1-1.5)

PE-DNS-SD-02

(0-1.0)

PE-DNS-SD-03

(0-1.0)

PE-DNS-SD-04

(0-1.0)

TABLE C-4

SITE DRAINAGE SEDIMENT SAMPLES - SUMMARY OF INORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK


Samples

Number of

Detections

Minimum

Detection

Maximum

Detection

Metals

Antimony mg/kg 43 43 0.06 1.50 0.41 0.31 0.26 0.29 0.31 0.57

Arsenic mg/kg 43 43 1.30 90.40 9.50 8.30 6.90 7.90 7.80 7.40

Barium mg/kg 43 43 36.30 394.00 96.50 88.20 86.10 94.50 64.20 J' 156.00

Cadmium mg/kg 43 43 0.17 7.50 2.10 0.51 0.34 0.27 0.74 7.50

Chromium mg/kg 43 43 5.80 30.40 18.60 19.60 19.00 20.40 14.60 J' 23.20

Cobalt mg/kg 43 43 3.30 31.50 16.40 15.20 13.90 13.80 15.10 J' 11.10

Copper mg/kg 43 43 14.50 6940.00 125.00 99.20 72.70 53.10 165.00 794.00

Lead mg/kg 43 43 16.10 356.00 48.50 40.20 91.30 30.30 48.20 J' 159.00

Mercury mg/kg 43 43 0.12 114.00 21.50 9.30 5.30 5.50 36.80 5.70

Selenium mg/kg 43 43 0.49 37.90 2.20 1.40 0.94 0.76 3.30 24.30

Silver mg/kg 43 43 0.04 27.10 0.05 B' 0.05 B' 0.04 B' 0.04 B' 0.04 B' 0.36

Zinc mg/kg 43 43 58.80 1770.00 69.90 69.30 65.40 68.30 60.20 156.00


Total organic carbon mg/kg 43 43 4,130 224,000 16,600 7,600 8,690 5,540 23,400 54,800

Percent Solids mg/kg 43 43 14.80 92.90 70.10 74.70 74.80 74.80 68.30 45.60

Notes:





PE-DRN-SD-01

(0.0-0.5)

PE-DRN-SD-01

(0.5-1.0)

PE-DRN-SD-01

(1.0-1.5)

PE-DRN-SD-01

(1.5-2.0)

PE-DRN-SD-01

(0.0-0.5)

PE-DRN-SD-02

(0.0-0.5)

TABLE C-4




PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Analyte Units

Metals

Antimony mg/kg

Arsenic mg/kg

Barium mg/kg

Cadmium mg/kg

Chromium mg/kg

Cobalt mg/kg

Copper mg/kg

Lead mg/kg

Mercury mg/kg

Selenium mg/kg

Silver mg/kg

Zinc mg/kg


Total organic carbon mg/kg

Percent Solids mg/kg

Notes:





0.37 0.37 0.13 B' 0.17 E' 0.45 0.38 0.27 0.13 B' 0.11 B' 0.06 B'

6.40 6.40 3.90 5.60 72.60 26.00 12.30 3.10 2.90 2.40

121.00 196.00 159.00 36.30 79.40 89.40 133.00 161.00 133.00 152.00

3.90 1.00 0.41 0.67 2.20 2.40 1.00 0.41 0.30 0.34

16.70 25.70 23.50 5.80 J' 12.40 J' 8.90 J' 19.60 J' 25.80 J' 21.90 J' 22.30 J'

7.60 9.40 8.40 3.30 6.40 5.90 10.30 10.70 9.70 8.80

582.00 63.90 27.70 89.90 189.00 115.00 213.00 44.20 69.80 23.70

108.00 47.60 23.10 36.70 51.20 28.00 64.20 21.10 18.40 18.30

9.00 1.30 0.39 2.20 2.20 1.00 29.40 1.60 1.90 0.57

9.10 3.30 2.20 7.60 29.60 37.90 14.60 2.20 1.90 2.20

0.19 0.19 0.13 0.62 0.47 0.49 0.36 0.18 0.26 0.16

111.00 94.60 67.90 107.00 1770.00 854.00 315.00 103.00 80.70 76.50

54,600 31,500 22,200 12,300 28,800 39,400 35,900 32,700 25,500 31,400

49.20 56.60 62.20 92.90 57.60 55.30 62.30 65.80 64.60 66.40

PE-DRN-SD-03

(1.0-1.5)

PE-DRN-SD-02

(0.5-1.0)

PE-DRN-SD-02

(1.0-1.5)

PE-DRN-SD-02

(1.5-2.0)

PE-DRN-SD-03

(0.0-0.5)

PE-DRN-SD-03

(0.5-1.0)

PE-DRN-SD-03

(1.5-2.0)

PE-DRN-SD-04

(0.0-0.5)

PE-DRN-SD-04

(0.5-1.0)

PE-DRN-SD-04

(1.0-1.5)

TABLE C-4




PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Analyte Units

Metals

Antimony mg/kg

Arsenic mg/kg

Barium mg/kg

Cadmium mg/kg

Chromium mg/kg

Cobalt mg/kg

Copper mg/kg

Lead mg/kg

Mercury mg/kg

Selenium mg/kg

Silver mg/kg

Zinc mg/kg




Notes:





0.06 B' 0.59 0.52 0.13 B' 0.10 B' 0.10 B' 0.50 0.66 0.47 0.43

1.50 5.20 5.30 4.00 3.30 2.30 13.10 15.40 13.50 12.20

140.00 187.00 187.00 165.00 163.00 195.00 166.00 207.00 165.00 150.00

0.26 2.20 2.50 0.60 0.56 0.53 1.90 5.20 2.00 1.50

20.00 J' 23.80 J' 23.70 J' 24.60 J' 22.70 J' 24.00 J' 19.00 J' 20.10 J' 17.70 J' 16.10 J'

8.80 10.40 10.20 9.80 9.10 9.40 10.40 12.70 10.60 9.30

36.90 349.00 345.00 42.50 31.60 35.30 2240.00 4870.00 2700.00 3660.00

17.90 71.60 70.30 22.90 21.10 21.00 209.00 356.00 212.00 211.00

0.25 10.70 12.70 0.81 0.46 0.36 24.20 34.30 31.10 73.60

1.10 26.50 25.80 3.30 3.30 3.00 9.30 16.10 9.60 9.30

0.16 27.10 23.20 0.87 1.10 1.30 0.31 0.56 0.30 0.25

73.40 277.00 280.00 118.00 91.10 88.00 1030.00 1410.00 1200.00 874.00

13,000 99,600 60,100 31,200 25,400 21,900 36,800 66,700 37,600 49,000

76.70 37.50 37.50 62.40 66.10 70.10 46.60 50.00 52.20 51.50

PE-DRN-SD-06

(0.5-1.0)

PE-DRN-SD-04

(1.5-2.0)

PE-DRN-SD-05

(0.0-0.5)

PE-DRN-SD-05

(0.0-0.5) DUP

PE-DRN-SD-05

(0.5-1.0)

PE-DRN-SD-05

(1.0-1.5)

PE-DRN-SD-05

(1.5-2.0)

PE-DRN-SD-06

(0.0-0.5)

PE-DRN-SD-06 (1.0-

1.5)

PE-DRN-SD-06

(1.5-2.0)

TABLE C-4




PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Analyte Units

Metals

Antimony mg/kg

Arsenic mg/kg

Barium mg/kg

Cadmium mg/kg

Chromium mg/kg

Cobalt mg/kg

Copper mg/kg

Lead mg/kg

Mercury mg/kg

Selenium mg/kg

Silver mg/kg

Zinc mg/kg




Notes:





0.50 0.86 1.50 0.44 0.61 E' 1.20 0.67 0.23 0.09 B' 0.12 B'

18.00 15.40 15.50 10.30 46.30 90.40 69.20 7.70 1.30 2.90

394.00 382.00 307.00 172.00 121.00 167.00 153.00 114.00 101.00 83.20

4.00 4.00 4.10 1.60 2.40 4.60 2.20 0.54 0.21 0.23

23.60 J' 22.30 J' 30.40 J' 20.40 J' 20.30 J' 19.90 J' 22.00 J' 22.90 J' 18.20 J' 16.70 J'

12.60 11.40 12.30 8.80 9.40 13.60 19.90 31.50 11.60 10.30

6660.00 6550.00 5360.00 6940.00 J' 284.00 J' 335.00 J' 309.00 J' 67.50 J' 41.70 J' 48.00 J'

285.00 232.00 235.00 205.00 J' 185.00 J' 137.00 J' 176.00 J' 38.30 J' 19.00 J' 25.30 J'

22.70 18.80 15.40 27.30 4.60 6.10 114.00 6.50 8.00 4.60

17.90 12.70 15.70 6.70 9.80 10.50 6.80 1.70 0.63 0.87

0.85 0.40 0.34 0.30 0.42 E' 0.22 B' 0.11 B' 0.08 B' 0.07 0.07

1770.00 1370.00 1120.00 733.00 317.00 571.00 700.00 178.00 65.80 69.70

98,400 67,100 59,200 36,400 84,800 224,000 74,600 41,400 5,170 10,900

23.90 38.20 42.20 59.50 29.30 14.80 40.00 49.80 77.20 74.60

PE-DRN-SD-09 (0.5-

1.0)

PE-DRN-SD-07

(0.0-0.5)

PE-DRN-SD-07

(0.5-1.0)

PE-DRN-SD-07

(1.0-1.5)

PE-DRN-SD-07

(1.5-2.0)

PE-DRN-SD-08

(0.0-0.5)

PE-DRN-SD-08

(0.5-1.0)

PE-DRN-SD-08

(1.0-1.5)

PE-DRN-SD-08 (1.5-

2.0)

PE-DRN-SD-09 (0.0-

0.5)

TABLE C-4




PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Analyte Units

Metals

Antimony mg/kg

Arsenic mg/kg

Barium mg/kg

Cadmium mg/kg

Chromium mg/kg

Cobalt mg/kg

Copper mg/kg

Lead mg/kg

Mercury mg/kg

Selenium mg/kg

Silver mg/kg

Zinc mg/kg




Notes:





0.19 0.19 0.12 B' 0.12 B' 0.11 B' 0.15 0.31

5.70 8.40 3.10 2.50 3.30 5.20 7.80

97.80 82.60 108.00 111.00 104.00 97.20 95.70

0.31 0.27 0.23 0.22 0.17 0.20 0.25

19.50 J' 18.60 J' 16.80 J' 17.20 J' 16.70 J' 20.70 J' 22.00 J'

13.20 11.90 8.70 8.80 10.00 12.00 13.90

35.20 J' 35.40 J' 15.80 J' 16.30 J' 14.50 J' 24.10 J' 26.50 J'

21.80 J' 21.10 J' 23.80 J' 24.30 J' 17.40 J' 16.10 J' 19.50 J'

1.40 1.30 2.80 2.80 0.28 0.12 0.12

0.69 0.63 0.99 1.00 0.65 0.49 0.56

0.07 0.07 0.06 B' 0.06 B' 0.05 B' 0.06 B' 0.07

74.60 74.90 75.30 76.30 58.80 72.30 77.50

4,400 4,240 13,800 18,000 10,600 5,690 4,130

72.60 74.90 64.30 64.10 74.40 75.10 75.40

PE-DRN-SD-10 (1.5-

2.0)

PE-DRN-SD-09 (1.0-

1.5)

PE-DRN-SD-09 (1.5-

2.0)

PE-DRN-SD-10 (0.0-

0.5)

PE-DRN-SD-10 (0.0-0.5)

DUP

PE-DRN-SD-10 (0.5-

1.0)

PE-DRN-SD-10 (1.0-

1.5)

TABLE C-5

SWMU 1/22 WETLAND COMPLEX SURFACE WATER STATIONS - SUMMARY OF INORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Analyte Sample

Type1 Units

Number of

Samples

Number of

Detections

Metals

U µg/L 9 0 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U

F µg/L 9 0 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U

U µg/L 9 9 3.30 2.40 18.60 3.00 3.70 5.90 0.81 B' 1.30 B' 0.33 B'

F µg/L 9 6 2.00 1.90 B' 12.00 2.00 2.60 4.40 0.93 U (2.0) 1.50 U (2.0) 0.68 U (2.0)

U µg/L 9 9 0.16 B' 0.15 B' 0.07 B' 0.96 B' 0.58 B' 0.40 B' 0.10 B' 0.46 B' 0.11 B'

F µg/L 9 9 0.06 B' 0.19 B' 0.04 B' 0.26 B' 0.25 B' 0.20 B' 0.11 B' 0.18 B' 0.14 B'

U µg/L 9 0 0.20 U 0.20 U 0.20 U 0.20 U 0.20 U 0.20 U 0.20 U 0.20 U 0.20 U

F µg/L 9 0 0.20 U 0.20 U 0.20 U 0.20 U 0.20 U 0.20 U 0.20 U 0.20 U 0.20 U

U µg/L 9 1 5.00 U 5.00 U 0.49 B' 5.00 U 5.00 U 5.00 U 5.00 U 5.00 U 5.00 U

F µg/L 9 3 5.00 U 0.86 B' 1.40 B' 0.50 B' 5.00 U 5.00 U 5.00 U 5.00 U 5.00 U

U µg/L 9 9 3.90 B' 2.70 B' 4.90 B' 7.20 1.70 B' 2.80 B' 2.20 B' 3.70 B' 1.30 B'

F µg/L 9 9 4.50 B' 1.90 B' 3.70 B' 2.60 B' 2.30 B' 4.50 B' 3.40 U (5.0) 3.00 U (5.0) 1.30 U (5.0)

Other Water Quality Parameters

Total Suspended Solids U mg/L 9 3 4.00 U 4.00 U 4.00 U 4.00 U 4.00 U 4.00 U 2.00 B' 3.60 B' 2.00 B'

Hardness U mg/L 9 9 133.00 128.00 156.00 132.00 127.00 133.00 54.70 71.60 80.00

Notes:

1, U, Unfiltered sample; F, Filtered (0.45 µm) sampleU Result is a non-detect < the detection limit (DL)



Selenium

Zinc

PE-SW-01 PE-SW-09

Cadmium

Copper

Lead

Mercury

PE-SW-02 PE-SW-03 PE-SW-04 PE-SW-05 PE-SW-06 PE-SW-07 PE-SW-08

TABLE C-6

NON-DEPURATED BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE TISSUE SAMPLES - SUMMARY OF INORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK


Samples

Number of

DetectionsMin Detection Max Detection

Cadmium mg/kg, wet weight 9 9 0.03 0.94 0.078 0.043 0.061 0.154 0.944 0.044 0.053 0.171 0.031

Copper mg/kg, wet weight 9 9 10.30 171.00 15.2 16.9 78.3 64.9 171 14.5 13.01 53.1 10.3

Mercury ng/g, wet weight 9 9 18.60 270.00 69.9 30.9 70.9 18.6 26.8 64.7 62.27 270 30.2

Methylmercury ng/g, wet weight 9 9 0.68 47.08 22.1 17.7 17 5.37 0.68 45.7 47.08 17.5 22.8

Lead mg/kg, wet weight 9 9 0.29 6.65 0.285 J-M 1.85 J-M 0.446 J-M 6.65 J-M 3 J-M 1.11 M 0.58 0.782 J-M 0.304 J-M

Selenium mg/kg, wet weight 9 9 0.42 8.51 0.65 2.4 1.04 4.63 8.51 1.76 1.67 2.84 0.42

Zinc mg/kg, wet weight 9 9 19.38 42.00 20.6 42 25.9 31.8 37.8 22.6 19.38 33 20.3

Notes:J-M

Result is estimated; duplicate precision percent difference associated with QC sample was not within acceptance criteria.M Result is estimated; duplicate precision percent difference was not within acceptance criteria.

PE-SQT-BITIS-07-

DUP

PE-SQT-BITIS-

08

PE-SQT-BITIS-

11

PE-SQT-BITIS-

01

PE-SQT-BITIS-

02

PE-SQT-BITIS-

04

PE-SQT-BITIS-

05

PE-SQT-BITIS-

06

PE-SQT-BITIS-

07

TABLE C-7

WHOLE BODY FISH TISSUE SAMPLES - SUMMARY OF INORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK


Samples

Number of

Detections

Cadmium mg/kg, dry weight 21 19 0.041 B' 0.039 B' 0.049 0.051 0.043 0.155 0.041 0.078 0.077 0.137 0.076

Copper mg/kg, dry weight 21 21 5.74 7.86 10.5 11.4 12.8 12.2 1.77 5.66 5.06 3.75 13.5

Mercury ng/g, dry weight 21 21 327.0 575.0 376.0 553.0 409.0 319.0 215.0 349.0 632.0 309.0 440.0

Methylmercury ng/g, dry weight 21 21 278.0 592.0 338.0 592.0 371.0 295.0 193.0 265.0 526.0 331.0 411.0

Lead mg/kg, dry weight 21 21 0.094 B' 0.134 B' 0.111 B' 0.359 0.218 0.211 0.059 B' 0.134 B' 0.225 0.088 B' 0.703

Selenium mg/kg, dry weight 21 21 4.95 4.75 6.3 4.34 5.68 7.15 6.85 8.24 7.25 7.71 3.9

Zinc mg/kg, dry weight 21 21 158.0 162.0 203.0 203.0 166.0 60.3 45.7 61.9 66.7 68.0 173.0

Total Solids % 21 21 22.16 20.72 21.16 21.1 24.58 29.99 32.29 21.21 29.68 21.57 21.81



FF, Forage fish tissue sample

PF, Piscivorous fish tissue sample

DNS, Downstream

Site, Site

UPS, Upstream

PE-DNS-FFTIS-

01

PE-DNS-FFTIS-

02

PE-DNS-FFTIS-

03

PE-DNS-FFTIS-

04

PE-DNS-FFTIS-

05

PE-DNS-PFTIS-

01

PE-DNS-PFTIS-

02

PE-DNS-PFTIS-

03

PE-DNS-PFTIS-

04

PE-DNS-PFTIS-

05

PE-SITE-FFTIS-

01

TABLE C-7

WHOLE BODY FISH TISSUE SAMPLES - SUMMARY OF INORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Analyte Units

Cadmium mg/kg, dry weight

Copper mg/kg, dry weight

Mercury ng/g, dry weight

Methylmercury ng/g, dry weight

Lead mg/kg, dry weight

Selenium mg/kg, dry weight

Zinc mg/kg, dry weight

Total Solids %



FF, Forage fish tissue sample

PF, Piscivorous fish tissue sample

DNS, Downstream

Site, Site

UPS, Upstream

0.023 B' 0.026 B' 0.016 U 0.016 U 0.056 0.016 B' 0.022 B' 0.023 B' 0.032 B' 0.015 B'

10.7 8.59 3.67 6.29 7.98 7.09 10.5 7.17 5.57 6.96

370.0 316.0 407.0 426.0 201.0 269.0 243.0 318.0 275.0 244.0

408.0 296.0 387.0 443.0 162.0 252.0 234.0 357.0 326.0 241.0

0.891 0.974 0.22 0.497 0.494 0.135 B' 0.125 B' 0.091 B' 0.076 B' 0.275

6.77 3.33 3.45 5.71 2.1 2.03 1.97 1.72 1.5 1.58

265.0 184.0 193.0 284.0 95.5 232.0 214.0 164.0 194.0 207.0

19.02 20.16 19.34 18.87 20.3 20.86 20.05 22.96 22.41 20.38

PE-SITE-FFTIS-

04

PE-SITE-FFTIS-

02

PE-SITE-FFTIS-

03

PE-UPS-PFTIS-

01

PE-SITE-FFTIS-

05

PE-UPS-FFTIS-

01

PE-UPS-FFTIS-

02

PE-UPS-FFTIS-

03

PE-UPS-FFTIS-

04

PE-UPS-FFTIS-

05

TABLE C-8

NON-DEPURATED EARTHWORM TISSUE SAMPLES - SUMMARY OF INORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK


Samples

Number of

Detections

Antimony mg/kg, dry weight 27 7 0.47U (2.0)

0.051U (2.0)

1.1U

0.088U (2.0)

0.99U

1.2U

Arsenic mg/kg, dry weight 27 27 11.1 5 5.6 4.1 1.3 6.1J

Barium mg/kg, dry weight 27 27 98.8 11.1 9.5 36 5.7 2.3B'

Cadmium mg/kg, dry weight 27 27 22.6 31.9 64.8 4.4 2.3 8.8

Chromium mg/kg, dry weight 27 21 13.9J

1.4J

1.3J

1.7J

2J

0.97U (2.0)

Cobalt mg/kg, dry weight 27 27 5.9 3.2 1.4 1.6 3.6 4.6J

Copper mg/kg, dry weight 27 27 26.3J'

13.9J'

15.8J'

7.2J'

6.2J'

5.2J

Lead mg/kg, dry weight 27 27 107J

13.5J

65.6J

37.2J

1.5J

2.3J

Mercury mg/kg, dry weight 27 27 1.7J

1.3J

0.46J

1.6J

0.76J

1.2J

Selenium mg/kg, dry weight 27 27 209 127 147 113 4.5 42.7J

Silver mg/kg, dry weight 27 21 0.83 1.7 1.2 0.2 0.5U

0.27B'

Zinc mg/kg, dry weight 27 27 334J'

546J'

266J'

155J'

123J'

534J

Percent Moisture % 27 27 77 80.9 81.3 50 79.9 82.7

Notes:

R Result is considered unusable due to a major quality control anomaly

J Result is estimated due to a minor quality control anomaly




PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-02PE-N1-EWTIS-COMP-01 PE-N1-EWTIS-COMP-02 PE-N1-EWTIS-COMP-03 PE-N1-EWTIS-COMP-05 PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-01

TABLE C-8




PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Analyte Units

Antimony mg/kg, dry weight

Arsenic mg/kg, dry weight

Barium mg/kg, dry weight


Chromium mg/kg, dry weight

Cobalt mg/kg, dry weight



Mercury mg/kg, dry weight


Silver mg/kg, dry weight


Percent Moisture %

Notes:






0.21B'

0.096U (2.0)

0.16U (2.0)

0.26U (2.0)

0.38B'

0.073B'

0.23B'

0.26B'

3.6J

3.9 4.8 10.1 12.2 8.8 8.3 7.2

2.9B'

33.7 23.3 2.6B'

8.7 2.4B'

7.3 35

8.9 3.9 13.6 18.5 34.1 21.8 5.3 7.7

1.6J

8.8J

4.6J

1.2U (2.0)

5.3J

1.4J

1.9J

9.4J

7.1J

6.6 4.8 8.2 10.6 4.2 5.7 4.4

6.5 13.2J'

51.5J'

17.5J'

15.3 11.1 25.4 95.5

1.6 10.8J

206J

183J

188 219 2.9 69.3

2.2R

0.66J

5.6J

2.8J

3.5R

1.6R

3R

7.9R

17.1J

16.3 68.2 197 189J'

129J'

136J'

19.9J'

0.098B'

0.079B'

0.019B'

0.29B'

0.72 0.75 0.14B'

0.014B'

368J

291J'

656J'

260J'

404 564 257 428

82.8 80.7 83.8 85.4 85.7 82.2 80.6 83

PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-02

DUPPE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-05 PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-01 PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-02 PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-03 PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-04 PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-05 PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-01

TABLE C-8




PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Analyte Units













Percent Moisture %

Notes:






0.06B'

0.065U (2.0)

0.33U (2.0)

0.21U (2.0)

0.57U (2.0)

0.21U (2.0)

6.8 5.1 9.7 6.9 3.6 3.6

5.5B'

2.5B'

8.9 3.4B'

3.3B'

33.2

23.7 7.7 8.6 5.5 4 16.1

1.2U (2.0)

1U (2.0)

2.7J

1.1U (2.0)

0.99U (2.0)

7J

1.6 4.4 7.3 5.8 3.9 6.3

7.1 9.7J'

8.1J'

6.4J'

24.6J'

22.7J'

59.9 9.2J

15.2J

3.7J

4.3J

73J

3.5R

2.8J

4.2J

3.3J

0.66J

7.2J

41J'

46.9 97.2 57.9 21.2 9.7

1.1 0.62U

0.23B'

0.035B'

0.57U

0.51U

767 436J'

445J'

427J'

185J'

329J'

85.3 83.9 84.8 83.9 82.5 80.3

PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-05PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-02 PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-03 PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-04 PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-03 PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-04

TABLE C-8




PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Analyte Units













Percent Moisture %

Notes:






0.2U (2.0)

0.31B'

0.26U (2.0)

0.19U (2.0)

0.2U (2.0)

0.28U (2.0)

0.53U (2.0)

4.4 4.8 5.6 5.9 8.9 7.1 8.8

30.1J

3.4J

11.7 3.4B'

10.7 19.3 40.6

10.2 8.5 4.1 13.1 7 8 6.9

6.3J

1.4J

5.2J

1.6J

4.8J

7.8J

10.4J

4.7J

3J

3.9 5.1 5 4 9.7

74.1J

9.5J

66.3J'

7.5J'

17.1J'

48.6J'

91.9J'

558J

919J

29J

12.8J

14.7J

34.1J

39.1J

2.8J

1.7R

6.8J

3.2J

5.7J

9.8J

3.7J

14.6J

39.2J

38.6 71.1 196 122 66

0.035B'

0.66U

0.025B'

0.63U

0.053B'

0.098B'

0.051B'

344J'

451 171J'

312J'

296J'

346J'

472J'

85.3 84.8 79 84.1 84.2 87 79.6

PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-03 PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-04 PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-05PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-05PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-05

DUPPE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-01 PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-02

TABLE C-9

NON-DEPURATED SMALL MAMMAL WHOLE BODY TISSUE SAMPLES - SUMMARY OF INORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK


Samples

Number of

Detections

Antimony mg/kg, wet weight 16 3 0.18 U 0.17 U 0.16 U 0.19 U 0.16 U 0.17 U 0.18 U 0.16 U 0.17 U 0.04 B' 0.18 U 0.0077 B' 0.037 U (0.17)

Arsenic mg/kg, wet weight 16 11 0.17 0.32 0.92 0.046 B' 0.055 B' 0.087 U 0.088 U 0.081 U 0.087 U 0.027 B' 0.091 U 0.026 B' 0.14

Barium mg/kg, wet weight 16 16 2.3 6.4 13.2 3.7 4.4 1.7 1.4 0.39 B' 1.6 3.6 1.2 1.9 2.9

Cadmium mg/kg, wet weight 16 6 0.023 B' 0.1 J 0.036 J 0.056 J 0.29 J 0.087 U 0.088 U 0.081 U 0.087 U 0.086 U 0.091 U 0.088 U 0.084 U

Chromium mg/kg, wet weight 16 16 4.2 J 1.7 J 6.2 J' 2.5 J' 1.5 J 2.8 J' 7.5 J' 2.2 J 2.2 J 4.3 J' 2.8 J' 1.9 J 5.5 J'

Cobalt mg/kg, wet weight 16 16 0.046 0.38 0.044 0.043 B' 0.038 B' 0.046 0.05 0.02 B' 0.036 B' 0.047 0.07 0.064 0.1

Copper mg/kg, wet weight 16 16 2.4 3.4 4.6 2.6 2.3 2 J' 2.6 1.9 2 2.3 2 J' 1.7 2.7 J'

Lead mg/kg, wet weight 16 16 0.24 1.6 1.9 0.18 0.073 B' 0.08 B' 0.046 B' 0.98 0.031 B' 0.08 B' 0.52 0.52 0.59

Mercury mg/kg, wet weight 16 3 0.033 U 0.032 U 0.03 U 0.014 B' 0.03 U 0.031 U 0.026 U 0.03 U 0.027 U 0.026 U 0.029 U 0.031 U 0.03 U

Selenium mg/kg, wet weight 16 16 5.7 J 13.2 J 40.2 J 2 J 0.93 J 0.38 B' 0.45 J 0.45 J 0.32 J 0.77 J 0.31 B' 0.32 J 3.6

Silver mg/kg, wet weight 16 2 0.088 U 0.033 B' 0.081 U 0.093 U 0.082 U 0.087 U 0.088 U 0.081 U 0.087 U 0.086 U 0.091 U 0.088 U 0.084 U

Zinc mg/kg,wet weight 16 16 20.1 J 19.7 J 20.1 J 20.7 J 22 J 25.7 J 24.9 J 143 J 24.4 J 33 J 57.4 J 49.7 J 179 J

Percent Moisture % 16 16 82 88.9 84.5 73.8 82.1 77 81.6 85.9 85.4 76.6 85.4 72.2 81.6

Notes:





PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-

01

PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-

02

PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-

03

PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-

04

PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-

05

PE-N2-SMTIS-INDV-

01

PE-N2-SMTIS-INDV-

02

PE-N2-SMTIS-INDV-

03

PE-N2-SMTIS-INDV-

04

PE-N2-SMTIS-INDV-

05

PE-N3-SMTIS-INDV-

01

PE-N3-SMTIS-INDV-

01 DUP

PE-N3-SMTIS-INDV-

02

TABLE C-9

NON-DEPURATED SMALL MAMMAL WHOLE BODY TISSUE SAMPLES - SUMMARY OF INORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Analyte Units

Antimony mg/kg, wet weight

Arsenic mg/kg, wet weight

Barium mg/kg, wet weight

Cadmium mg/kg, wet weight

Chromium mg/kg, wet weight

Cobalt mg/kg, wet weight

Copper mg/kg, wet weight

Lead mg/kg, wet weight

Mercury mg/kg, wet weight

Selenium mg/kg, wet weight

Silver mg/kg, wet weight

Zinc mg/kg,wet weight

Percent Moisture %

Notes:





0.17 U 0.17 U 0.17 U 0.18 U 0.16 U 0.17 U 0.18 U 0.019 U (0.18) 0.17 U 0.2 U 0.17 U

0.17 0.033 B' 0.22 0.088 U 0.023 B' 0.083 U 0.09 U 0.086 B' 0.084 U 0.022 B' 0.017 B'

1.5 1.4 2.9 3.1 1.7 3.2 1.6 2.1 1.7 1 2

0.083 U 0.085 U 0.086 U 0.088 U 0.079 U 0.015 J 0.09 U 0.092 U 0.084 U 0.098 U 0.086 U

4.5 J' 5.8 J' 3.9 J' 5.2 J' 1.7 J 1 J 1.5 J 12.5 J' 7.1 J' 1.7 J' 11.5 J'

0.05 0.06 0.051 0.044 0.038 B' 0.051 0.037 B' 0.075 0.043 0.025 B' 0.087

2.3 J' 3.8 J' 2.2 J' 2.5 2 2.3 2 2.6 J' 3.3 J' 2.2 J' 3.1 J'

1.5 1.1 5.1 0.069 B' 0.15 0.42 0.27 1.3 0.31 0.13 0.17

0.027 U 0.014 B' 0.013 B' 0.025 U 0.013 B' 0.032 U 0.03 U 0.047 0.1 0.014 B' 0.023 B'

8.3 0.7 9.4 0.35 J 0.33 J 0.83 J 0.83 J 0.84 0.56 0.38 B' 0.28 B'

0.083 U 0.085 U 0.086 U 0.088 U 0.079 U 0.083 U 0.09 U 0.092 U 0.084 U 0.098 U 0.086 U

146 J 70.8 J 236 J 22 J 18.8 J 25.4 J 19.8 J 26.5 J 27.5 J 21.1 J 25.5 J

74.1 76.7 89.2 87 77.8 86 88.1 69.2 76.8 80.3 86.2

PE-S2-SMTIS-INDV-01PE-N3-SMTIS-INDV-

03

PE-N3-SMTIS-INDV-

04PE-N3-SMTIS-INDV-05 PE-SI-SMTIS-INDV-04PE-S2-SMTIS-INDV-02 PE-S3-SMTIS-INDV-01

PE-S3-SMTIS-INDV-01

DUPPE-SI-SMTIS-INDV-01 PE-SI-SMTIS-INDV-02 PE-SI-SMTIS-INDV-03

TABLE C-10

ACTIVE PLANT AREA SOIL SAMPLING - SUMMARY OF INORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK


Samples

Number of

Detections

Metals

Antimony mg/kg 32 32 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.8 0.3 B'

Arsenic mg/kg 32 32 13.3 7.2 6.3 7.1 9.5 8.4

Barium mg/kg 32 32 122 113 112 110 558 58.9

Cadmium mg/kg 32 32 0.65 0.66 0.8 0.46 0.51 0.16

Chromium mg/kg 32 32 20.1 J' 20 J' 19.2 J' 18.1 J' 16.2 J' 21.3 J'

Cobalt mg/kg 32 32 12.5 9.8 9.7 11.4 8.2 11.2

Copper mg/kg 32 32 41.1 28.0 50.7 20.0 24.7 19.7

Lead mg/kg 32 32 98.7 83.9 63.4 58.3 676 27

Mercury mg/kg 32 32 0.16 0.16 0.14 0.59 0.45 0.057

Selenium mg/kg 32 32 25.0 20.6 6.5 4.3 179.0 0.8

Silver mg/kg 32 32 0.1 B' 0.1 B' 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 B'

Zinc mg/kg 32 32 75.0 68.4 92.1 92.1 86.7 64.1


Percent Solids % 32 32 85.5 82.1 82.5 80.8 83.4 69.6

Notes:




PE-N1-SO-COMP-

01

PE-N1-SO-COMP-

02

PE-N1-SO-COMP-

03

PE-N1-SO-COMP-

04

PE-N1-SO-COMP-

05

PE-N2-SO-COMP-

01

TABLE C-10




PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Analyte Units

Metals

Antimony mg/kg

Arsenic mg/kg

Barium mg/kg

Cadmium mg/kg

Chromium mg/kg

Cobalt mg/kg

Copper mg/kg

Lead mg/kg

Mercury mg/kg

Selenium mg/kg

Silver mg/kg

Zinc mg/kg


Percent Solids %

Notes:




0.3 0.3 B' 0.2 B' 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 B' 0.2 B'

7.7 6.9 8 6.8 6.2 8.3 10.7 5.6 5.3

74.8 68.2 66.1 63.4 98.4 62.9 68.4 57.8 55.2

0.24 0.21 0.18 0.23 0.33 0.17 0.17 0.14 0.17

21.2 J' 20 J' 21.1 J' 17.4 J' 21.6 J' 20 J' 22.4 J' 20 J' 19.9 J'

12.6 11.8 12.2 10.4 12.2 13.1 15.9 10.7 9.4

22.6 20.0 24.8 19.1 19.2 172.0 27.7 24.4 28.7

30.4 27.2 22.2 23.2 35.8 57.4 38.5 29.9 29.1

0.14 0.14 0.099 0.099 0.23 1.4 0.26 0.18 0.17

1.0 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.2 4.9 1.3 1.1 1.1

0.1 B' 0.0 B' 0.0 B' 0.1 B' 0.1 B' 0.1 B' 0.1 B' 0.1 B' 0.0 B'

76.1 69.1 77.1 69.5 80.5 79.2 79.8 69.3 67.3

73.6 75.3 81.5 85.2 71.5 77.5 76.9 77.5 78.4

PE-N3-SO-COMP-

02

PE-N3-SO-COMP-

03

PE-N3-SO-COMP-

04

PE-N3-SO-COMP-

01

PE-N2-SO-COMP-

02

PE-N2-SO-COMP-02-

DUP

PE-N2-SO-COMP-

03

PE-N2-SO-COMP-

04

PE-N2-SO-COMP-

05

TABLE C-10




PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Analyte Units

Metals

Antimony mg/kg

Arsenic mg/kg

Barium mg/kg

Cadmium mg/kg

Chromium mg/kg

Cobalt mg/kg

Copper mg/kg

Lead mg/kg

Mercury mg/kg

Selenium mg/kg

Silver mg/kg

Zinc mg/kg


Percent Solids %

Notes:




0.3 0.4 0.2 B' 0.2 B' 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3

9.2 E' 9.8 8.2 4.3 4.5 4.5 6 5.5 6.9

136 115 74.7 89.4 81.6 J' 96.1 J' 65.2 J' 47.3 J' 72.2 J'

0.31 0.36 0.16 0.15 0.25 0.21 0.17 0.13 0.19

25.7 J' 25.8 J' 12.3 J' 17.9 J' 13 J' 14.9 J' 15.9 J' 14.6 J' 17.3 J'

16.9 22.8 6.8 10.4 6.9 J' 9.4 J' 13.3 J' 8.7 J' 14.6 J'

53.5 282.0 23.5 18.0 13.7 13.0 14.6 16.9 127.0

42.2 109 33.4 27.9 22.2 J' 21.1 J' 32.9 J' 50.8 J' 28.3 J'

0.33 0.83 1.1 0.65 0.44 0.16 0.34 0.33 0.077

2.5 1.4 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.9

0.1 B' 0.0 B' 0.1 B' 0.0 B' 0.1 0.1 B' 0.1 B' 0.0 B' 0.0 B'

85.2 227.0 49.4 52.9 44.0 42.8 54.0 46.9 57.4

75.4 84.7 75.7 76.8 77.4 77.6 76.1 75.9 80.2

PE-S2-SO-COMP-

02

PE-S2-SO-COMP-

03

PE-S1-SO-COMP-

02

PE-S1-SO-COMP-

03

PE-S1-SO-COMP-

04

PE-S1-SO-COMP-

05

PE-S2-SO-COMP-

01

PE-N3-SO-COMP-

05

PE-S1-SO-COMP-

01

TABLE C-10




PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Analyte Units

Metals

Antimony mg/kg

Arsenic mg/kg

Barium mg/kg

Cadmium mg/kg

Chromium mg/kg

Cobalt mg/kg

Copper mg/kg

Lead mg/kg

Mercury mg/kg

Selenium mg/kg

Silver mg/kg

Zinc mg/kg


Percent Solids %

Notes:




0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.5

6.6 7 6.6 5.2 6.1 8.2 6.4 5.7

61.8 J' 67.1 J' 62.4 J' 49.9 J' 47.7 J' 95.8 J' 70.7 J' 68.6 J'

0.14 0.2 0.17 0.15 0.15 0.31 0.2 0.21

17 J' 15.3 J' 14.6 J' 14 J' 14.1 J' 16.8 J' 16.3 J' 12.5 J'

12.8 J' 10.2 J' 9.7 J' 9.8 J' 8.9 J' 11.2 J' 11.5 J' 10.7 J'

23.9 63.0 56.0 281.0 56.4 52.6 170.0 145.0

55.1 J' 563 J' 497 J' 40.7 J' 31.7 J' 58.6 J' 39.2 J' 45.7 J'

0.34 0.33 0.38 0.21 0.27 4.4 0.78 3.2

1.1 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.6 6.2 1.1 1.0

0.1 B' 0.1 0.1 0.0 B' 0.0 B' 0.1 B' 0.1 B' 0.1 B'

57.8 65.1 61.0 47.1 46.3 97.0 61.4 54.7

57.1 75.1 74.6 75.4 76.5 64.9 75.0 71.5

PE-S3-SO-COMP-

02

PE-S3-SO-COMP-

03

PE-S3-SO-COMP-

04

PE-S3-SO-COMP-

05

PE-S2-SO-COMP-

04

PE-S2-SO-COMP-

05

PE-S2-SO-COMP-05-

DUP

PE-S3-SO-COMP-

01

TABLE C-11

SWMU 35 PERIMETER SOIL SAMPLING - SUMMARY OF INORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK


Samples

Number of

Detections

Minimum

Detection

Maximum

Detection

Antimony mg/kg 6 6 0.13 0.31 0.31J

0.23J

0.16J

0.13J

0.22J

0.16J

Arsenic mg/kg 6 6 3.90 7.10 5.60J

7.10J

5.20J

3.90J

6.40J

4.50J

Barium mg/kg 6 6 45.60 286.00 73.90 89.40 49.30 45.60 286.00 87.20

Cadmium mg/kg 6 6 0.09 11.80 11.80 0.26 0.10 0.09 0.46 0.14

Chromium mg/kg 6 6 15.50 21.70 16.60J'

16.70J'

18.30J'

15.50J'

21.70J'

17.00J'

Cobalt mg/kg 6 6 7.80 17.10 10.10 10.30 10.60 7.80 17.10 8.90

Copper mg/kg 6 6 11.80 40.70 40.70J

22.90J

14.60J

12.20J

17.80J

11.80J

Lead mg/kg 6 6 12.20 41.20 41.20 21.80 17.80J

12.20J

31.50 22.80J'

Mercury mg/kg 6 6 0.03 0.14 0.09 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.14 0.13

Selenium mg/kg 6 6 0.33 0.96 0.76 0.53 0.34 0.33B'

0.96 0.55

Silver mg/kg 6 6 0.02 0.15 0.07J'

0.07 0.02B'

0.02B'

0.15 0.06B'

Zinc mg/kg 6 6 47.10 72.70 62.90 61.70 52.60 47.10 72.70 52.10

Percent Solids % 6 6 72.70 80.70 75.10 80.70 75.90 72.70 78.30 73.50




J 'Method blank contamination

PE-35-SO-05PE-35-SO-01 PE-35-SO-02 PE-35-SO-03 PE-35-SO-03 DUP PE-35-SO-04

APPENDIX D

Port Ewen, New York Appendix D

Port Ewen FWIA Appendix D_DRM Description.doc 1 Fort Washington, PA

Description of Dose Rate Modeling FWIA Step IIC Investigation Report

Dyno Nobel Port Ewen Site

The purpose of this appendix is to describe the development of dose rate models used to

evaluate potential exposures to wildlife receptors identified in the New York State

Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Fish and Wildlife Impact

Analysis (FWIA) of the Dyno Nobel Port Ewen site (Site). Dose rate models were

developed based on the ecological conceptual site model (ECSM) to calculate estimated

daily doses (EDDs) of metals that select receptor groups potentially experience through

exposure to site media. As described in Sections 4.0 and 5.0 of the FWIA Step IIC

Report (Report), comprehensive biological tissue, surface water, sediment, and soil data

were collected to provide site-specific inputs to dose rate models. Model development

and parameterization were reviewed with NYSDEC Division of Fish, Wildlife, and

Marine Resources (DFWMR) in a February 23, 2011 meeting and series of subsequent

conference calls (March 4, 11, and 18, 2011) during the preparation of the Report.

The following sections provide a detailed description of wildlife exposure areas and the

development of the dose rate models, including the selection of species-specific exposure

parameters, exposure point concentrations (EPCs), bioaccumulation factors (BAFs), biota

sediment accumulation factors (BSAFs), area use factors (AUFs), and wildlife toxicity

reference values (TRVs).

Exposure Areas

The following sections define the wildlife exposure areas evaluated for the SWMU 1/22

Wetland Complex and the Active Plant Area.

SWMU 1/22

The wildlife exposure area for SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex included the area from the

plant entrance road to the farthest extent of the downstream sediment characterization

sampling (Report Figure 15). The area characterized by the downstream sediment

sampling stations was included in the wildlife exposure area because there were elevated

concentrations of site-related metals observed in the downstream sediments. Because of

the proximity of these drainages to the Wetland Complex, it was assumed that wildlife

foraging within the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex would also potentially forage

downstream of the Site. In addition, at the request of DFWMR, portions of the site

drainage ditches to the east of the railroad tracks were conservatively included in the

exposure area. Based on these extents, the total exposure area for the SWMU 1/22

Wetland Complex comprises approximately 5.2 hectares and approximately 1.9 linear

kilometers (Report Figure 15).

Active Plant Area

The terrestrial exposure evaluation in the Active Plant Area focused on potential risks to

wildlife receptors that potentially forage on small mammals and earthworms along the

margins of the facility. As described in the Report (Section 5.1.1), small mammal and

earthworm tissue collections were spatially- and temporally- matched with the collection



of surficial soil samples in six (6) sampling grids designated by DFWMR: three (3) grids

near the northern extent of the Active Plant Area and three (3) grids near the southern

extent (Report Figure 10). Each sampling grid was approximately one hectare in area.

Dose rate models were develop to evaluate terrestrial wildlife exposure for the following

scenarios based on the exposure areas:




exposure for long-ranging receptors (red-tailed hawk and red fox).

The combined data for the northern and southern grids were used to conservatively

represent exposure throughout the approximately 42 hectares of the Active Plant Area.

The following sections present the modeling approach and specific model parameters.

Modeling Approach

Simplified dose rate models were developed to evaluate wildlife ingestion pathways in

the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex and the Active Plant Area. EDDs for wildlife

receptors were calculated using: (1) EPCs based on site-specific measurements of metals

in prey and abiotic media and (2) receptor-specific exposure parameters and food chain

model assumptions. EDDs were calculated using EPCs and receptor-specific exposure

parameters expressed on a dry weight basis1. Receptor doses from diet and incidental

substrate ingestion were modeled using dry weight parameters to avoid introducing

unnecessary uncertainty into the model associated with converting parameters from dry

weight to wet weight based on approximate moisture contents of dietary items. Food

ingestion rates, substrate ingestion rates, and substrate-to-biota accumulation rates were

expressed on a dry weight basis.

EDDs calculated using dose rate models were compared to TRVs representing no

observable adverse effect levels (NOAELs) or low observable adverse effect levels

(LOAELs) to evaluate the potential for adverse ecological effects. Potential risks

associated with estimated doses to wildlife receptors were expressed as hazard quotients

(HQs), which represent the ratio of the calculated EDD to the TRV for wildlife ingestion

pathways:

TRV

EDDHQ =

(1)

Potential risk may be characterized based on HQs, as follows:

� HQs greater than 1.0 indicate that exposure exceeds a known threshold of effects,

which could represent no adverse effects (e.g., NOAEL) or low adverse effects

(e.g., LOAELs).

1 Wet weight tissue concentrations reported by analytical laboratories were converted to dry weight based on the

measured moisture content of tissue samples, with the exception of benthic invertebrate tissue samples. Insufficient

sample mass was available to measure percent moisture in benthic invertebrate tissue; therefore, the wet weight to

dry weight conversion for benthic invertebrate tissue was based on an assumed 75% moisture content.



� HQs less than 1.0 based on a NOAEL indicate that adverse effects are extremely

unlikely because constituent concentrations result in a dose that has been

demonstrated to not cause adverse ecological effects.

� HQs less than 1.0 based on a LOAEL indicate that constituent concentrations do

not result in an exposure associated with adverse ecological effects to test

organisms; HQs less than 1.0 based on a LOAEL are not likely to result in

adverse effects to receptor populations.

Based on the dose rate model described above, potential risks to wildlife receptors were

evaluated based on two (2) scenarios:

� Maximum Area Use: Scenario conservatively assumes that individual wildlife

receptors forage exclusively within the defined exposure area for their entire life

span. For this scenario, the AUF input into the dose rate model is 1.0; and

� Area Use Adjusted Exposure: Scenario quantifies exposure based on the

proportion of the time that a receptor is likely to forage within the exposure area

as a function of its total foraging range. For this scenario, the AUF input into the

dose rate model is the ratio of the size of the exposure area to the size of the

receptor-specific foraging range as described below.

The following sections present the general dose rate models used to evaluate wildlife

exposure in the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex and the Active Plant Area.


The total dose (EDDtotal) potentially experienced by select receptors foraging in the

SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex was calculated as the sum of the doses obtained from the

primary routes of exposure: the direct ingestion of dietary items, the direct ingestion of

surface water, and the incidental ingestion of substrate (i.e., sediment):

substratewaterdiettotal EDDEDDEDDEDD ++= (2)

In the model, the dose from each route of exposure was calculated individually as

follows:

Dietary Dose:

Receptor-specific exposure parameters were used to estimate the dietary dose based on

representative tissue concentrations as follows:

BW

AUFDFCIREDD

iitdiet

diet

∑ ×××

=

)(

(3)

where:

EDDdiet = Dietary dose of constituent (mg/kg receptor body weight-day)

IRdiet = Ingestion rate of food (kg food ingested per day, dry weight)

Ct i = UCL95 concentration of constituent in dietary item i (mg /kg food item,

dry weight)



DFi = Dietary fraction of item i (proportion of dietary item in total diet)



Water Dose:

The dose associated with the direct ingestion of surface water was calculated based on

surface water EPCs and receptor-specific exposure parameters as follows:

BW

AUFCIREDD waterwater

water

××=

(4)

EDDwater = Dose of constituent obtained through direct ingestion of surface water


IRwater = Drinking water ingestion rate (liters ingested per day)




Substrate Dose:

The dose associated with the incidental ingestion of substrate was calculated based on

calculated sediment EPCs and receptor-specific exposure parameters as follows:

BW

AUFCSIREDD substrateincidental

substrate

××=

(5)

EDDsubstrate = Dose of constituent obtained through incidental ingestion of substrate


SIRincidental = Incidental substrate ingestion rate (kg substrate ingested per day, dry

weight)

Csubstrate = Constituent concentration in substrate (mg COPEC/kg substrate, dry

weight)


BW = Body weight of the receptor, wet weight (kg).

Input parameters specific to each exposure route for the semi-aquatic wildlife exposure

evaluation are discussed in the Model Parameters section below.

Active Plant Area

The total dose (EDDtotal) experienced by select terrestrial wildlife receptors foraging at

the margin of the Active Plant Area was calculated as the sum of the doses obtained from

the primary routes of exposure: the direct ingestion of dietary items and the incidental

ingestion of substrate (i.e., soil):

substratediettotal EDDEDDEDD += (6)



The dose from each the dietary route of exposure was calculated using the general form

of the Equation 3 presented in the preceding section for the SWMU 1/22 Wetland

Complex; the dose associated with incidental substrate ingestion was calculated using the

general form of Equation 5. Input parameters specific to each exposure route for the

terrestrial wildlife exposure evaluation are discussed in the following section.

Model Parameters

The model includes parameters relating to receptor-specific exposure factors, EPCs,

bioaccumulation factors, and area use factors. The following sections describe the

estimation of these parameters and the major assumptions of parameterization.

Receptor-Specific Exposure Parameters

The FWIA cannot specifically evaluate the potential for adverse effects to every wildlife

species that may be present and potentially exposed in the SWMU 1/22 Wetland

Complex and Active Plant Area. As a result, receptors were selected to represent broader

groups of organisms and those that are of high ecological value.

Each species selected as a representative receptor reflects an assessment endpoint, which

considers trophic category and particular feeding behaviors (e.g., fish-eating birds versus

worm-eating birds) that represent different modes of potential exposure to target metals.

Consequently, the species chosen for evaluation may represent several similarly exposed

species in the area.

The following criteria were used to select potential receptors:

� The receptor utilizes or potentially utilizes habitats present in the study area;

� The receptor is important to either the structure or function of the ecosystem;

� The receptor is statutorily protected (e.g., threatened or endangered species);

� The receptor is reflective and representative of the assessment endpoints for the

exposure area; and

� The receptor is known to be either sensitive or highly exposed to target metals

present in site exposure media.

Semi-aquatic wildlife receptors selected to quantitatively evaluate exposure from the

SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex include:

� Omnivorous mammals: raccoon (Procyon lotor);

� Aerial insectivorous mammals: Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis);

� Piscivorous mammals: mink (Mustela vison);

� Invertivorous birds: mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos);

� Semi-aquatic insectivorous birds: tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor); and

� Piscivorous birds: great blue heron (Ardea herodias).



In the Active Plant Area, ecological receptors were selected to evaluate exposure to

wildlife that potentially forage at the margins of the facility. Receptor categories were

selected to represent low-level secondary consumers and top-tier predators to provide a

range of potential wildlife exposure. Low-level secondary consumers were represented

by invertivorous birds and mammals that forage primarily on earthworms:

ο Small invertivorous mammals: Short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda); and

ο Invertivorous birds: American robin (Turdus migratorius).

Top-tier predators were represented by carnivorous birds and mammals that forage

primarily on low-level secondary consumers:

ο Carnivorous birds: Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis); and

ο Carnivorous mammals: Red fox (Vulpes vulpes).

Exposure parameters used to calculate the EDD for each receptor include body weight

(kg, wet weight), food ingestion rate (kg dry weight/day), incidental substrate ingestion

rate (kg dry weight/day), dietary composition, and area use factor. Table D-1

summarizes the receptor-specific exposure parameters selected for the dose rate model, as

discussed below:

� Body Weight: Typical body weights for receptors were obtained from various

literature sources, as summarized in Table D-1.

� Dietary composition: The composition of dietary items for the dose rate models

were generally obtained from literature sources, including USEPA (1993),

Sample and Suter (1994), and various receptor-specific sources.

� Food ingestion rates: Food ingestion rates were estimated as a function of body

weight using allometric regression models developed by Nagy (2001) for various

types of mammalian and avian receptors.

� Water ingestion rates: Direct ingestion rates of drinking water were estimate

from allometric regression formulas presented in Calder and Braun (1983), as

cited in Sample and Suter (1994).

� Incidental substrate ingestion rates: Estimates of incidental substrate ingestion

rates were based on data obtained from Beyer et al. (1994) and Sample and Suter

(1994). Beyer et al. (1994) estimated substrate ingestion as a function of dietary

intake based on the acid-insoluble ash content measured in the scat of select

wildlife species. Because the quantification of substrate ingestion was based on

the content of soil or sediment in the scat of consumer, total substrate ingestion

rates derived from these data represent the sum of the substrate contained within

the gut tract of the prey and substrate incidentally ingested while foraging (i.e.,

attached to prey items, etc.), as follows:

incidentalpreytotal SISISI += (7)

where:

SItotal = Total substrate ingestion as proportion of total dietary intake;



SIincidental = Substrate incidentally ingested while foraging as a proportion of

total dietary intake; and

SIprey = Substrate ingested within the gut tract of prey as a proportion of

total dietary intake.

The relative contributions of SIprey and SIincidental to total substrate ingestion were

estimated to account for the input of non-depurated tissue data (e.g., earthworms,

benthic invertebrates) into dose rate models. Without depurating or purging the

gut of prey items prior to analysis, substrate ingested by prey items remained in

the gut tract and thus, was included in the measured metal concentration of the

whole body sample. As a result, inputting non-depurated tissue results into the

dose rate model, without adjusting the estimate of SItotal, double-counts the

contribution of the substrate contained within the gut tract of the prey (SIprey).

Since the dose of metals associated with the ingestion of substrate contained

within the prey is accounted for in the analysis of the non-depurated tissue

samples, only the incidentally ingested substrate (SIincidental) (i.e., attached to prey

items, etc.) was included in the dose rate models. The incidental ingestion of

sediment was estimated as difference between the total substrate ingestion rate

(SItotal)2 and the ingestion of substrate contained in the gut tract of prey (SIprey):

preytotalincidental SISISI −= (8)

The ingestion of substrates within the gut tracts of prey items (SIprey) was

estimated as a function of total dietary intake based on the relative proportion of

the mass of the gut contents to the total body mass of the prey item (Sgut) and the

proportion of the prey item in the receptor diet (DF):

DFSSI gutprey ×= (9)

where:

SIprey = Substrate ingested within the gut tract of prey as a proportion of

total dietary intake;

Sgut = Relative of proportion of the mass of gut contents to total body

mass; and

DF = Proportion of the diet represented by the prey item (Table D-1).

A review of available literature indicated that the percentage of soil in the gut

contents to the total body weight of earthworms may range from 103 to 50 percent

(Honda et al., 1984). Based on this range, a conservative estimate of 10 percent

(0.1 gut content as a proportion of total body mass) of soil in the gut content of

earthworms as a percentage of body weight was used in Equation 9 to estimate

SIprey values for vermivorous wildlife.

2 This “total” substrate rates is equivalent to the incidental substrate ingestion rate provided by Beyer et al. (1994)

and Sample and Suter (1994) 3 http://www.nrri.umn.edu/worms/research/methods_worms_biomass.html



Based on a review of available literature, gut contents were associated with 2 to

19 percent of the total body weight of benthic invertebrates. Neumann et al.

(1999) estimated that the gut content of the amphipod Hyalella azteca accounted

for between 2 and 15 percent of total body weight. Amyot et al. (1996) estimated

a similar range (3 to 11 percent) of the relative contribution of the gut content of

the amphipod Gammarus fasciatus. Gut contents of the mayfly Hexagenia

limbata, the midge Chironomus tentans, and the oligochaete Lumbriculus

variegatus were associated with 9 to 10 percent of total body weight (Brooke et

al., 1996). Additional data for oligochaetes and chironomid larvae estimated that

the gut contents contributed 14.9 to 16.8 percent of total body weight,

respectively (Chapman, 1985). Cain et al. (1995) reported 5 to 19 percent of the

body weight of stonefly nymphs and caddisfly larvae was associated with the

contents of the gut.

Based on the range of the estimated contribution of gut content to total body

mass, a conservative estimate of 2 percent reported for Hyalella azteca (0.02 gut

content as a proportion of total body mass) was used in Equation 9 to estimate

SIprey values for receptors foraging on benthic invertbrates. The use of Hyalella

data is appropriate and relevant to the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex, given the

representation of this taxon in the benthic invertebrate tissue samples collected in

the wetland (See Section 4.5.1 of the Report).

Based on the estimations of total substrate ingestion (SItotal) provided in the

literature (Beyer et al., 1994) and the estimation of substrate ingestion from the

gut contents of prey items (SIprey) described above, incidental substrate ingestion

as a proportion of dietary ingestion (SIincidental) was calculated using Equation 8

above.

Daily incidental substrate ingestion rates (SIRincidental) were calculated by

multiplying the total daily dietary ingestion rate (DIR) by the proportion of DIR

represented by incidental substrate ingestion (SIincidental), as follows:

incidentalincidental SIDIRSIR ×= (10)

where:

SIRincidental = Daily incidental ingestion rate of substrate (kg substrate ingested

per day, dry weight;

DIR = Daily ingestion rate of dietary items (kg food ingested per day,

dry weight); and

SIincidental = Substrate incidentally ingested while foraging as a proportion of

total dietary intake.

� Home range: Home range data for the selected receptors were compiled from

USEPA (1993) and receptor-specific literature sources. Compiled data were

evaluated for each receptor based on the relevance of the study to exposure at the

Site (Table D-2). Home ranges from representative studies conducted in similar

habitat types in similar geographic ranges were selected preferentially. If multiple

studies with relevant home range values were identified, the most conservative



home range (e.g., smallest in area) was selected for inclusion in the dose rate

models. Selected home ranges were reviewed with DFWMR during the

development of the dose rate models.

Exposure Point Concentrations

Representative concentrations of target metals in biotic and abiotic exposure media were

calculated for use as EPCs in dose rate models. As described in detail in the Report

Sections 4.5 and 5.1 for the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex and the Active Plant Area,

respectively, biological tissue data were collected to provide site-specific inputs to dose

rate models. EPCs were primarily calculated as the upper 95 percent confidence limit of

the mean concentration (UCL95) measured in biological tissue and physical media

collected from the Site. Calculations of UCL95 were conducted using USEPA ProUCL

4.00.02 software (ProUCL); UCL95 values recommended by ProUCL based on the

underlying distributions of the datasets were selected as EPCs for dose rate models

(USEPA, 2007a). The following sections describe the calculation of representative EPCs

for the two exposure areas.


As discussed above, estimated doses to semi-aquatic wildlife exposed to target metals in

the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex were calculated based on the primary routes of

exposure: the direct ingestion of dietary items (e.g., invertebrates and fish), the direct

ingestion of surface water, and the incidental ingestion of sediment. The procedure for

calculating EPCs to represent target metal concentrations in exposure media in the

SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex is described below:

� Sediment: EPCs associated with the incidental ingestion of sediment were

calculated based on the UCL95 of target metals in sediment from sediment quality

triad (SQT) and downstream sampling stations;

� Surface Water: The dose associated with the direct ingestion of surface water

was conservatively calculated based on maximum unfiltered surface water

concentrations; the detection limit was used to represent EPCs for non-detected

target metals.

� Aquatic Life Stage Invertebrates: Representative EPCs for aquatic life stage

invertebrates were based on UCL95 concentrations (dry weight) of the site-specific

‘market basket’ tissue data collected within the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex4

and estimated concentrations of target metals in aquatic life stage invertebrates

from the four downstream sampling stations included in the exposure area.

Benthic invertebrate tissue data reported in wet weight were converted to dry

weight based on an assumed moisture content of 75 percent (Sample and Suter,

1994; Ricciardi and Bourget, 1998); as stated in Section 4.5.1 of the Report, the

mass of benthic invertebrate samples submitted to the laboratory was insufficient

to quantify the percent moisture.

4 Explained in Section 4.5 of the Report.



Concentrations in aquatic life stage invertebrates were estimated at stations

downstream of the SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex based on site-specific

bioaccumulation relationships established for SQT stations. Concentrations of

cadmium, copper, and lead at downstream stations were estimated based on

bioaccumulation relationships between measured invertebrate tissue

concentrations and corresponding sediment concentrations (Figure D-1; Table D-

3).

For total mercury, methylmercury, and zinc, BSAFs were calculated as the ratio

of the measured tissue concentration to sediment concentration at each SQT

station. BSAFs for methylmercury in tissue were calculated based on total

mercury measurements in sediment; methylmercury was not analyzed in sediment

samples. Relationships between sediment concentrations and BSAFs were used

to calculate station-specific BSAFs for total mercury, methylmercury, and zinc at

each downstream station (Figure D-2). Station-specific BSAFs were multiplied

by sediment concentrations to estimate concentrations in aquatic life stage

invertebrates (Table D-3).

Bioaccumulation relationships between concentrations measured in tissue and

sediment were not consistent for selenium. The geometric mean BSAF calculated

from station-specific tissue and sediment data was used as a representative BSAF

to estimate concentrations of selenium in aquatic life stage invertebrates at

downstream stations. The geometric mean BSAF for SQT stations (0.185) was

multiplied by the concentration in sediment to estimate concentrations of

selenium in aquatic life stage invertebrates (Table D-3).

EPCs of target metals in aquatic life stage invertebrates were calculated as the

UCL95 concentrations of measured tissue concentrations at SQT stations and

estimated tissue concentrations at downstream stations.

� Emergent Life Stage Invertebrates: Concentrations of target metals in

emergent life stage invertebrates were calculated as a function of the

concentrations in aquatic life stage invertebrates and the estimated loss/gain of

metal body burden during metamorphosis. As presented in Table D-4, correction

factors were derived from literature studies to estimate concentrations of target

metals in emergent life stage invertebrates based on aquatic life stage

invertebrates. Concentrations of target metals in emergent life stage invertebrates

were estimated by multiplying the derived correction factors to EPCs calculated

for aquatic life stage invertebrates (Table D-3).

� Fish Tissue: EPCs for fish tissue were developed based on site-specific tissue

data collected as part of the FWIA. As described in Section 4.5.2 of the Report,

fish tissue samples were collected upstream, within, and downstream of the

SWMU 1/22 Wetland Complex. Forage fish (golden shiner) were collected in

each sampling reach; American eel were collected in the downstream sampling

reach, and a single largemouth bass was collected in the upstream reach. Fish

tissue results from sampling reaches within and downstream of the SWMU 1/22

Wetland Complex were used to calculate representative EPCs for piscivorous

wildlife in dose rate models.



EPCs for piscivorous wildlife were estimated based on UCL95 concentrations

calculated from fish tissue data representing likely dietary components for each

piscivorous receptor:

o Belted kingfisher: Fish tissue EPCs for belted kingfisher were based on

the UCL95 calculated from forage fish tissue data from the Site and

downstream sampling reaches; kingfisher typically forage on small fish

(e.g., <15 cm) and therefore, are not likely to consume larger fish (e.g.,

eels) in the downstream reach:

o Great blue heron, mink and raccoon: Fish tissue EPCs for larger

piscivores were based on the UCL95 calculated from forage and

piscivorous fish samples collected from the Site and downstream sampling

reaches.

Active Plant Area

As discussed above, estimated doses to terrestrial wildlife exposed to target metals at the

margins of the Active Plant Area were calculated based on the primary routes of

exposure: the direct ingestion of dietary items and the incidental ingestion of substrate

(e.g., soil). The procedure for calculating EPCs to represent target metal concentrations

in exposure media in the Active Plant Area is described below:

� Soil: EPCs associated with the incidental ingestion of soil were calculated based

on the UCL95 of target metals in soil;

� Plants: EPCs for target metals in plant tissues were estimated based on

bioaccumulation from soil. Concentrations of select metals in terrestrial plants

were estimated consistent with USEPA Eco-SSL guidance (USEPA, 2007b) using

the recommended applications of terrestrial plant bioaccumulation models

developed by Efroymson et al. (2001) based on data compiled in Bechtel (1998);

soil to plant uptake factors developed by Baes et al. (1984) were also included for

select metals. UCL95 concentrations of estimated plant tissue concentrations were

used as representative EPCs.

� Earthworms: Representative EPCs for earthworms were based on the UCL95

concentrations calculated from the site-specific non-depurated earthworm tissue

datasets;

� Small mammals: Representative EPCs for small mammal were based on the

UCL95 concentrations calculated from non-depurated small mammal tissue

collected at the Site.

Area Use Factors (AUFs)

AUFs were used to estimate the proportion of time a receptor would actively forage

within the two exposure areas evaluated in the FWIA. As previously stated, wildlife

exposures to target metals were evaluated based on two exposure scenarios: maximum

area use exposure (AUF = 1.0) and adjusted area use exposure.

The adjusted area use exposure evaluation provides a more realistic estimate of risk based

on the proportion of time that a receptor is likely to actively forage within a given



exposure area. For this estimate, the AUF was calculated for each receptor as the ratio of

the size of the exposure area to the area of the receptor home range:

AreaRangeHome

AreaExposureAUF =

A default AUF of 1.0 is assumed for receptors with home ranges smaller than the

exposure area. AUFs calculated for the adjusted area use exposure scenario are

summarized in Table D-5.

Toxicity Reference Values (TRVs)

EDDs calculated for each receptor were evaluated relative to TRVs that represent

NOAEL or LOAEL doses derived from toxicological studies. TRVs for the FWIA were

primarily derived from toxicological studies accepted by the USEPA for the derivation of

Eco-SSLs. The approach for deriving TRVs was established through discussions with

DFWMR during the development of the dose rate models, as described below. A

summary of the TRVs selected for the FWIA are presented in Table D-6.

The preferred approach for deriving TRVs for the FWIA was based on the evaluation of

accepted Eco-SSL feeding studies containing bounded endpoints (i.e., NOAELs and

LOAELs) for growth and reproduction. Studies that administered doses through food

were selected preferentially for TRV derivation because these studies are more

representative of typical wildlife exposure, as compared to other routes of exposure (e.g.,

gavage, injection, etc.) that are less relevant to natural exposure. TRVs used to evaluate

estimated doses in the FWIA were generally calculated as the geometric mean of

NOAEL and LOAEL endpoints from feeding studies representing the lowest bounded

LOAELs (maximum 10 studies) for each metal. For mammalian exposure to lead,

survival endpoints were also included in the subset of lowest bounded LOAEL studies (n

= 5) to account for mortality observed in some test organisms in the lower range of the

LOAEL dataset. A summary of avian studies used in the calculation of TRVs for arsenic,

cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, and zinc based on this approach is presented in

Table D-7; a summary of mammalian studies used to calculate TRVs for arsenic,

cadmium, cobalt, copper, lead, and zinc is presented in Table D-8.

If the compilation of Eco-SSL toxicological studies did not have sufficient data from

bounded feeding studies to calculate TRVs for target metals based on the above

approach, TRVs were calculated based on the geometric mean of NOAELs and LOAELs

reported for growth and reproduction endpoints. Table D-6 presents geometric mean

values calculated for arsenic and silver based on available NOAEL and LOAEL

endpoints for avian growth and reproduction; geometric mean NOAEL and LOAEL

values calculated for mammalian exposure to antimony, barium, chromium, and silver are

also presented in Table D-6.

TRVs for total mercury, methylmercury, and selenium were calculated based on studies

identified in the literature. Eco-SSLs have not been derived for mercury; therefore,

available studies regarding total and methylmercury exposure were evaluated to identify

TRVs for the FWIA. Studies evaluated as part of the USEPA Mercury Study Report to

Congress (Report to Congress) were used as the basis for methylmercury TRVs in the



FWIA (USEPA 1997). For the purposes of deriving water quality criteria for

methylmercury, the Report to Congress derived NOAEL and LOAEL TRVs for avian

receptors based on mallard studies conducted by Heinz (1979) and mammalian TRVs

based on mink studies conducted by Woebeser et al. (1976a, 1976b). As summarized

Table D-6, the resulting endpoints from these studies were used as the basis for NOAEL

and LOAEL TRVs for avian and mammalian receptors in the FWIA.

TRVs for total mercury were based on dietary studies compiled from the literature.

Avian TRVs for total mercury were based on reproductive effects reported by Hill and

Schaffner (1976) resulting from an administered dose of mercuric chloride to Japanese

quail in food. TRVs for mammalian exposure to total mercury were based on a dietary

NOAEL of 1.0 mg/kg for reproductive effects in mink reported by Aulerich et al. (1974).

A LOAEL of 7.0 mg/kg was based on developmental effects resulting from dietary

exposure to rats (Rizzo and Furst, 1972). Considering dietary studies, selected TRVs for

mammalian exposure were the lowest doses compiled for feeding studies and therefore,

represent conservative endpoints (Table D-9). As previously stated TRVs based on

dietary studies are more relevant to wildlife exposure and were selected preferentially

over studies with less relevant methods of exposure (e.g., gavage, injection, etc.).

Avian and mammalian TRVs for selenium were based on studies evaluating exposure to

mallard and mink, respectively. Heinz et al. (1989) reported reproductive effects to

mallards fed diets supplemented with selenium in the form of selenomethionine; the

NOAEL and LOAEL from this study were used as avian TRVs for the FWIA (Table D-

6). Selenium TRVs for mammalian receptors were based on reproductive effects on rats

exposed to potassium selenate (Rosenfeld and Beath, 1954); the NOAEL and LOAEL

reported from this study represented the NOAEL and LOAEL used in the FWIA.

No avian data exist for barium in the database compiled for the derivation of Eco-SSLs;

therefore, a study by Johnson et al. (1960) was used as the basis for the avian TRVs for

barium.

References

Amyot, M., B. Pinel-Alloul, P. G.C. Campbell and J.C. Desy. 1996. Total metal burdens

in the freshwater amphipod Gammarus fasciatus: contribution of various body

parts and influence of gut contents. Freshwater Biology 35:363-373.

Andres, P. 1984. IgA-IgG Disease in the intestine of brown-norway rates ingesting

mercuric chloride. Clinical Immunology and Immunopathology. 30:488-494.

Aulerich, R.J., R.K. Ringer, and S. Iwamoto. 1974. Effects of Dietary Mercury on Mink.

Arch. Env. Contam. Toxicol. 2: 43-51.

Baes, C.F., R. Sharp, A. Sjoreen, and R. Shor. 1984. A Review and Analysis of

Parameters for Assessing Transport of Environmentally Released Radionuclides

through Agriculture. Prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory for U.S. Dept.

of Energy. 150 pp.



Bechtel Jacobs Company LLC. 1998. Empirical Models for the Uptake of Inorganic

Chemicals from Soil by Plants. Bechtel Jacobs Company LLC, Oak Ridge, TN.

BJC/OR-133.

Bernaudin, J.F., E. Druet, P. Druet and R. Masse. 1981. Inhalation of ingestion of organic

or inorganic mercurial produces auto-immune disease in rats. Clinical

Immunology and Immunopathology. 20:129-135.

Beyer, W.N., E.E. Connor, and S. Gerould. 1994. Estimates of soil ingestion by wildlife.

Journal of Wildlife Management 58(2):375-382.

Brooke, L.T., G.T. Ankley, D.J. Call and P.M. Cook. 1996. Gut Content Weight and

Clearance Rate for Three Species of Freshwater Invertebrates. Environmental

Toxicology and Chemistry. 15:223-228.

Cain, D.J., S.N. Luoma and E.V. Axtmann. 1995. Influence of gut content in immature

aquatic insects on assessment of environmental metal contamination. Can. J. Fish.

Aquat. Sci.; 52:2736-2746.

Calder, W.A. and E.J. Braun. 1983. Scaling of osmotic regulation in mammals and birds.

The American Journal of Physiological. 244:R601-R606.

Chapman, P.M. 1985. Effects of Gut Sediment Contents on Measurements of Metal

Levels in Benthic Invertebrates-a Cautionary Note. Environmental Contamination

and Toxicology. 35:345-347.

CH2MHill. 2005. Literature-derived bioaccumulation models for energetic compounds

in plants and soil invertebrates. CH2MHill, Inc. Technical Memorandum.

Prepared for U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine.

Chetelat, J., M. Amyot, L. Clouteir and A. Poulain. Metamorphosis in Chironomids,

more than mercury supply, controls methylmercury transfer to fish in high arctic

lakes. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42:9110-9115.

Currie, R.S., W.L. Fairchild and D.C.G. Muir. 1997. Remobilization and export of

cadmium from lake sediments by emerging insects. Environmental Toxicology

and Chemistry. 16:2333-2338.

Dieter, M.P., G.A. Boorman, C.W. Jameson, S.L. Eustis and L.C. Uraih. 1992.

Development of renal toxicity in F344 rats gavaged with mercuric chloride for 2

weeks, or 2,4,6,15, and 24 months. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental

Health. 36:319-340.



Druet, P., J. Bariety, F. Laliberte, B. Bellon, M.F. Belair, and M. Paing. 1978.

Distribution of heterologous antiperoxidase antibodies and their fragments in the

superficial renal cortex of normal Wistar-Munich rat: an ultrastructural study. Lab

Invest. 39:623-631.

Efroymson, R.A., Sample, B.E., and G.W. Suter. 2001. Uptake of inorganic chemicals

from soil by plant leaves: Regressions of field data. Environmental Toxicology

and Chemistry 20:2561-2571.

Fitzhugh, O.G., A.A. Nelson, E.P. Laug and F.M. Kunze. 1950. Chronic oral toxicities of

mercuric-phenyl and mercuric salts. Indust. Hyg. Occup. Med. 2:433-442.

Groenendijk, D., M.H.S. Kraak and W. Admiraal. 1999. Efficient shedding of

accumulated metals during metamorphosis in metal-adapted populations of the

midge Chironomus Riparius. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 18:

1225-1231.

Heinz, G.H. 1979. Methylmerury: Reproductive and behavioral effects on three

generations of mallard ducks. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 43:394-401.

Heinz, G.H., D.J. Hoffman and L.G. Gold. 1989. Impaired Reproduction of Mallards Fed

an Organic Form of Selenium. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 53:418-428.

Hill, E. F. and C. S. Schaffner. 1976. Sexual Maturation and Productivity of Japanese

Quail Fed Graded Concentrations of Mercuric Chloride. Poult. Sci. 55: 1449-

1459.

Honda, K., T. Nasu and R. Tatsukawa. 1984. Metal distribution in the earthworm,

Pheretima hilgendorfi, and their variations with growth. Archives of

Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 13:427-432.

IPCS (2003) Elemental mercury and inorganic mercury compounds: human health

aspects. Geneva,World Health Organization, International Program on Chemical

Safety (Concise InternationalChemical Assessment Document 50).

Johnson, D., A.L. Mehring and H.W. Titus. 1960. Tolerance of chickens for barium.

Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 104:436-438.

Knoflach, P., B. Albini and M.M. Weiser. 1986. Autoimmune disease induced by oral

administration of mercuric chloride in Brown-Norway Rats. Toxicologic

Pathology. 14:188-193



Krantzberg, G., and P.M. Stokes. 1988. The importance of surface absorption and pH in

metal accumulation by chironomids. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.

7:653-670.

McCarty, J. P. and D.W. Winkler. 1999. Foraging Ecology and Diet Selectivity of Tree

Swallows Feeding Nestlings. The Condor. 101:246-254.

Menzel, J.M., W.M. Ford, M.A. Menzel, T.C. Carter, J.E. Gardner, J.D. Garner and J.E.

Hofmann. 2005. Summer habitat use and home-range analysis of the endangered

Indiana Bat. Journal of Wildlife Management. 69: 430-436.

Nagy, K.A., 2001. Food requirements of wild animals: Predictive equations for free-

living mammals, reptiles, and birds. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews, Series B:

Livestock Feeds and Feeding, Volume 71, No. 10.

Neumann, P.T.M., U. Borgmann and W. Norwood. 1999. Effect of gut clearance on

metal body concentrations in Hyalella Azteca. Environmental Toxicology and

Chemistry. 18:976-984.

NTP (1993) Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of mercuric chloride (CAS no. 7487-

94-7) in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice (gavage studies). Research Triangle Park,

NC, US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service,

National Institutes of Health, National Toxicology Program (NTP TR 408; NIH

Publication No. 91-3139).

NYSDEC. 2011. Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). New York State Department of

Conservation. http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/6972.html

Opresko, D.M., B.E. Sample and G.W. Suter. 1994. Toxicological benchmarks for

wildlife. ES/ER/TM-86.Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN

Reinfelder, J.R. and N.S. Fisher. 1994. Retention of elements absorbed by juvenile fish

(Menidia menidia, Menidia beryllina) from zooplankton prey. Limnol. Oceanogr.

39:1783-1789.

Revis, T.W., T.R. Osborne, G. Holdsworth and C. Hadden. 1989. Distribution of

Mercury Species in Soil From a Mercury-Contaminated Site. Water, Air, and Soil

Pollution. 45:105-113.

Ricciardi. A. and E. Bourget. 1998. Weight-to-weight conversion factors for marine

benthic macroinvertebrates. Marine Ecology Progress Series 163:245-251.



Rizzo, A.M. and A. Furst. 1972. Mercury teratogenesis in the rat. Proc. West.

Pharmacol. Soc. 15:52-54.

Robertson, R.J., B.J. Stutchbury, and R.R. Cohen. 1992. Tree Swallow (Tachycineta

bicolor). p. 1-26. In A. Poole, P. Stettenheim and F. Gill (ed.) The Birds of North

America, No. 11. The Birds of North America, Inc, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Rosenfeld, I. and O.A. Beath. 1954. Effect of selenium on reproduction in rates. Proc.

Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 87:295-297.

Sample, B.E, D.M. Opresko, and G.W. Suter II. 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for

Wildlife: 1996 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.

ES/ER/TM-86/R3.

Sample, B.E. and G.W. Suter. 1994. Estimating Exposure of Terrestrial Wildlife to

Contaminants. ES/ER/TN-125. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.

University of Minnesota. 2006. Calculating Earthworm Biomass Guidance.

http://www.nrri.umn.edu/worms/research/methods_worms_biomass.html

USEPA. 2007a. ProUCL Version 4.00.02 User Guide. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/R-07/038.

_____. 2007b. Ecological soil screening level (Eco-SSL) (various metals) guidance and

documents. http://www.epa.gov/ecotox/ecossl/

_____. 1997. Mercury Study Report to Congress. Volume VI: An Ecological Assessment

for Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions in the Unites States. U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, EPA-452/R-97-008.

_____. 1995. Great Lakes water quality initiative criteria documents for the protection of

wildlife: DDT; mercury; 2,3,7,8-TCDD, PCBs. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency Office of Water and Office of Science and Technology. EPA/820-B-95-

008.

_____. 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook. Volumes I and II. EPA/600/R-

93/187a&b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Health and

Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington,

D.C.

Woebeser, G., N. O. Nielson, and B. Schiefer. 1976a. Mercury and mink I. The use of

mercury contaminated fish as a food for ranch mink. Can. J. Comp. Med. 40:30-

33.



Woebeser, G., N. O. Nielson, and B. Schiefer. 1976b. Mercury and mink II. Experimental

methylmercury intoxication. Can. J. Comp. Med. 40:34-45.

TABLE D-1

SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE PARAMETERS FOR AVIAN AND MAMMALIAN RECEPTORS


DYNO NOBEL PORT EWEN

PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Waterj

Common

Name

Scientific

Name

Food-web

classification

kg dry

weight/dayReference Liters / day

SITotal

(% of Total

Dry Intake)

SIPrey

(% of Total

Dry Intake)

SIRincidental

kg dry

wt./day

Reference

Avian Receptors

American robin Turdus migratoriussmall soil probing

invertivore0.4 ha

Howell (1942),

as cited in USEPA (1993)0.0808

Howell (1942),

as cited in USEPA (1993)60% 40% Sample and Suter (1994)

b 0.012 Nagy (2001)c 0.011 4.2% 4.00% 0.00002

Stotal: Beyer et al. (1994)

Sprey: Honda et al. (1984)

Belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyonsmall aquatic

piscivore1.03 km

Brooks and Davis (1987),


Brooks and Davis (1987),

as cited in USEPA (1993)100% Sample and Suter (1994) 0.022 Nagy (2001)

b 0.015 0% 0% 0 Sample and Suter (1994)

Great blue heron Ardea herodias medium piscivore 3.1 kmDowd and Flake (1985)


Dunning (1984),

as cited in Sample and Suter (1994)100% USEPA (1993) 0.140 Nagy (2001)

b 0.100 0% 0% 0 Sample and Suter (1994)f

Mallard Anus platyrhynchos aquatic omnivore 111 haDwyer et al. (1979)


Nelson and Martin (1953),

as cited in USEPA (1993)100% USEPA (1993) 0.052 Nagy (2001)

c 0.061 3.3% 2% 0.0007Stotal: Beyer et al. (1994)

Sprey: Neuman et al. (1999)

Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis large carnivore 233 ha USEPA (1993) 1.224Dunning (1984),

as cited in Sample and Suter (1994)100% Sample and Suter (1994) 0.095 Nagy (2001)

b 0.068 0% 0% 0 Sample and Suter (1994)f

Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor aerial insectivore 0.1 km McCarty and Winkler (1999) 0.0206 Robertson et al. (1992) 100% Sibley (2000) 0.0116 Nagy (2001) 0.004 0% 0% 0 Assumptionf

Mammalian Receptors

Indiana bat Myotis sodalisaerial insectivore

(protected)61.4 ha Menzel et al. (2005) 0.006 NYSDEC (2011) 100% NYSDEC (2011) 0.0012 Nagy (2001)

g 0.001 0% 0% 0 Assumptioni

Mink Mustela visonmedium semi-

aquatic piscivore1.85 km

Gerell (1970);

Sample and Suter (1994)0.6

Mitchell (1961),

as cited in USEPA (1993)100%

USEPA (1993); Sample

and Suter (1994)0.0256 Nagy (2001)

d 0.063 0% 0% 0 Sample and Suter (1994)

Raccoon Procyon lotormedium semi-

aquatic omnivore58 ha NYSDEC (pers. comm) 3.855

Stuewer (1943),

as cited in USEPA (1993)50% 50% USEPA (1993) 0.117 Nagy (2001)

e 0.333 9.4% 2% 0.009Stotal: Beyer et al. (1994)

Sprey: Neuman et al. (1999)

Red fox Vulpes vulpesmedium terrestrial

omnivore72.5 ha

Tullar and Berchielli (1980),


Storm et al. (1976),

as cited in USEPA (1993)10% 90% Sample and Suter (1994) 0.146 Nagy (2001)

d 0.383 2.8% 0% 0.004 Beyer et al. (1994)

Short-tailed shrew Blarina brevicaudasmall terrestrial

invertivore0.07

Platt (1976),


Schlesinger and Potter (1974),

as cited in USEPA (1993)100% Sample and Suter (1994) 0.002 Nagy (2001)

h 0.0023 13% 10% 0.00006Stotal: Beyer et al. (1994)

Sprey: Honda et al. (1984)

Notes:

a, km, kilometers; ha, hectares;

b, Estimated food ingestion rate (kg/day dry weight) for carnivorous birds = (0.849[Body Weight in grams] 0.663

)/1000 (Nagy 2001);

c, Estimated food ingestion rate (kg/day dry weight) for omnivorous birds = (0.670[Body Weight in grams] 0.627

)/1000 (Nagy 2001);

d, Estimated food ingestion rate (kg/day dry weight) for Carnivora = (0.102[Body Weight in grams] 0.864

)/1000 (Nagy 2001);

e, Estimated food ingestion rate (kg/day dry weight) for omnivorous mammals = (0.432[Body Weight in grams] 0.678

)/1000 (Nagy 2001);

f, Based on assumption from Sample and Suter 1994 that substrate ingestion is neglible for piscivores;

g, Estimated food ingestion rate (kg/day dry weight) for Chiroptera = (0.365[Body Weight in grams] 0.671

)/1000 (Nagy 2001);

h, Estimated food ingestion rate (kg/day dry weight) for mammalian insectivores = (0.373[Body Weight in grams] 0.622

)/1000 (Nagy 2001);

i, Assumption based on assumption from Sample and Suter 1994 that substrate ingestion is neglible for aerial insectivores;

j, Water ingestion rates estimate from allometric regression formulas presented in Calder and Braun (1983) as cited in Sample and Suter (1994);

k, Estimated food ingestion rate (kg/day dry weight) for insectivorous birds = (0.540[Body Weight in grams] 0.705)/1000 (Nagy 2001);

Substrate

Aquatic Invertebrates

Fish

Food

Dietary Composition

References

Ingestion Rates

Representative Species

Home

Rangea

Emergent

Invertebrates

Terrestrial

Invertebrates

Small M

ammalsHome Range

Reference

Body Weight

(kg wet weight)

Plant MaterialBody Weight Reference

(as cited in USEPA 1993)

TABLE D-2

SUMMARY OF HOME RANGE INFORMATION FOR SELECT WILDLIFE RECEPTORS



PORT EWEN, NEW YORKSpecies Measurement Age/Sex/Cond./Seas. Mean +SD Range Units Location/habitat Source

Original

Reference1

American Robin Foraging Home Range A summer feeding: nestlings 0.15+0.021 ha Ontario deciduous forest USEPA (1993) Weatherhead & McRae, 1990

A summer feeding: fledglings 0.81+0.13 ha Ontario deciduous forest USEPA (1993) Weatherhead & McRae, 1990

A B summer 0.4 km sc NY/forest USEPA (1993) Howell, 1942

Territory Size A B spring 0.42 0.12-0.84 ha Tennessee/campus USEPA (1993) Pitts, 1984

A B spring 0.11 ha NY/dense conifers USEPA (1993) Howell, 1942

A B spring 0.21 ha NY/unspecified forest USEPA (1993) Howell, 1942

A B spring 0.12 0.04 to 0.24 ha Wisconsin/parklike USEPA (1993) Young 1951

Belted Kingfisher Territory Size early summer breeding pairs 2.19+0.56 km shoreline PA/streams USEPA (1993) Brooks & Davis, 1987

early summer breeding pairs 1.03 + 0.28 km shoreline Ohio/streams USEPA (1993) Brooks & Davis, 1987

late summer non breeding individuals 1.03+0.22 km shoreline southwest/streams USEPA (1993) Davis, 1980

late summer non breeding individuals 0.39+0.093 km shoreline southwest ohio/streams USEPA (1993) Davis, 1980

A B breeding summer 1.6 0.8 to 8.0 km Minnesota/lake, forest USEPA (1993) Cornwell 1963

A B breeding summer 0.8 max 2.4 km Michigan/lakes USEPA (1993) Salyer & Lagler 1946

A B breeding summer 2.4 to 4.8 km Michigan/rivers USEPA (1993) Salyer & Lagler 1946

A B breeding summer 14.2 km Michigan/ponds, marsh USEPA (1993) Salyer & Lagler 1946

Great Blue Heron Size Feeding Territory A B fall 0.6+0.1 ha oregon freshwater marsh USEPA (1993) Bayer, 1978

A B winter 8.4+5.4 ha oregon/estuary USEPA (1993) Bayer, 1978

A M summer 0.98 km c Minnesota/lakes USEPA (1993) Peifer 1979

Foraging Distance from colony A B summer 3.1 up to 24.4 km South Dakota/river and streams USEPA (1993) Dowd & Flake, 1985

A B summer 7 to 8 km North Carolina/coastal USEPA (1993) Parnell & Soots, 1978

A B summer min 0.4-0.7 km Idaho/lake, mountain ridge USEPA (1993) Collazo 1981

A B summer 1.8 0 to 4.2 km Minnesota/Chippewa National Forest USEPA (1993) Mathisen & Richards 1978

A M summer 13.7 to 34.1 km c Minnesota/lakes, uplands USEPA (1993) Peifer 1979

A B 6.5 max 20.4 km upper Mississippi River USEPA (1993) Thompson 1978

Mallard Home Range A F spring - total 468+159 307 to 719 ha North Dakota/prairie potholes USEPA (1993) Dwyer et al. 1979

A F spring - laying 111 + 76 38 to 240 ha North Dakota/prairie potholes USEPA (1993) Dwyer et al. 1979

A F spring 540 40 to 1440 ha Minnesota/wetlands, river USEPA (1993) Kirby et al. 1985

A M spring 620 70 to 1140 ha Minnesota/wetlands, river USEPA (1993) Kirby et al. 1985

-- >283 ha Manitoba Can USEPA (1993) Dzubin 1955

A F spring 210 min 66 ha Minnesota/upland forest USEPA (1993) Gilmer et al. 1975

A M spring 240 Minnesota/upland forest USEPA (1993) Gilmer et al. 1975

A F spring 135 Minnesota/upland forest USEPA (1993) Gilmer et al. 1975

A F spring 70 Minnesota/upland forest USEPA (1993) Gilmer et al. 1975

A B spring max 760 Minnesota/upland forest USEPA (1993) Gilmer et al. 1975

Red Tailed Hawk Territory size A B spring 60 to 160 ha California/foothills USEPA (1993) Fitch et al 1946

A B winter 697+316 ha Michigan/fields, woodlots USEPA (1993) Craighead & Craighead 1956

A B summer 229+114 83 to 386 ha Wyoming/grasslands, forest USEPA (1993) Craighead & Craighead 1956

A B summer 377+146 130 to 557 ha s Michigan/fields, woodlots USEPA (1993) Craighead & Craighead 1956

I B summer 307 171 to 443 ha s Michigan/fields, woodlots USEPA (1993) Craighead & Craighead 1956

I summer 150 70 to 230 ha s Michigan/fields, woodlots USEPA (1993) Craighead & Craighead 1956

I winter 187 75 to 298 ha s Michigan/fields, woodlots USEPA (1993) Craighead & Craighead 1956

A B fall 1770 957 to 2465 ha Colorado/upland prairie, woodlands USEPA (1993) Andersen & Rongstad, 1989

A B fall 965 418 to 1747 ha Colorado/upland prairie, woodlands USEPA (1993) Andersen & Rongstad, 1989

-- 233 + 90 ha Oregon /pasture, wheat fields USEPA (1993) Janes 1984

A B winter 165 ha Wisconsin USEPA (1993) Peterson 1979

A B summer 1500 ha sw Idaho/canyon, shrubsteppe community USEPA (1993) USDI 1979

Foraging Radius -- 233 1770 ha USEPA 1993; Janes 1984

Tree Swallow Foraging Radius -- 0.1 max 0.2 km McCarty and Winkler 1999 McCarty and Winkler 1999

Indiana Bat Home Range -- 61.4 ha Illinois Menzel et al. (2005) Menzel et al. (2005)

Mink Home Range -- 259 to 380 ha North Dakota/prairie potholes USEPA (1993) Eagle (unpublished)

A M 770 ha Manitoba, Canada/prairie potholes USEPA (1993) Arnold & Fritzell, 1987

A M breeding summer 316 to 1626 ha Manitoba, Canada/prairie potholes USEPA (1993) Arnold 1986

A F 7.8 ha Montana/riverine heavy vegetation USEPA (1993) Mitchell, 1961

A F 20.4 ha Montana/riverine sparse vegetation USEPA (1993) Mitchell, 1961

A M 2.63 1.8 to 5.0 km Sweden/stream USEPA (1993) Gerell, 1970

J M 1.23 1.1 to 1.4 km Sweden/stream USEPA (1993) Gerell, 1970

A F 1.85 1.0 to 2.8 km Sweden/stream USEPA (1993) Gerell, 1970

A M 2.5 1.9 to 2.9 km river England/riverine USEPA (1993) Birks & Linn 1982

A F 2.2 1.5 to 2.9 km river England/riverine USEPA (1993) Birks & Linn 1982

A B 2.8 to 5.9 km river England/riverine USEPA (1993) Linn & Birks 1981

Raccoon Home Range A M spring/summer 2560 670 to 4946 ha North Dakota/prairie potholes USEPA (1993) Fritzell, 1978

A F spring/summer 806 229 to 1632 ha North Dakota/prairie potholes USEPA (1993) Fritzell, 1978

Y M spring/summer 1139 277 to 2160 ha North Dakota/prairie potholes USEPA (1993) Fritzell, 1978

Y F spring/summer 656 222 to 1263 ha North Dakota/prairie potholes USEPA (1993) Fritzell, 1978

A M 15.8 ha Ohio/residential woods USEPA (1993) Hoffman & Gottschang 1977

Y M 5.1 ha Ohio/residential woods USEPA (1993) Hoffman & Gottschang 1977

J M 2.8 ha Ohio/residential woods USEPA (1993) Hoffman & Gottschang 1977

A F 3.8 ha Ohio/residential woods USEPA (1993) Hoffman & Gottschang 1977

Y F 4.6 ha Ohio/residential woods USEPA (1993) Hoffman & Gottschang 1977

J F 2.3 ha Ohio/residential woods USEPA (1993) Hoffman & Gottschang 1977

A B 80 to 700 ha US USEPA (1993) Kaufmann 1982

A M May to Dec 204 18.2 to 814 ha Michigan/riparian USEPA (1993) Stuewer, 1943

A F May to Dec 108 5.3 to 376 ha Michigan/riparian USEPA (1993) Stuewer, 1943

J M 108 2.0 to 719 ha Michigan/riparian USEPA (1993) Stuewer, 1943

J F 45 2.0 to 323 ha Michigan/riparian USEPA (1993) Stuewer, 1943

A M all year 65+18 ha Georgia/coastal island USEPA (1993) Lotze, 1979

A F all year 39+16 ha Georgia/coastal island USEPA (1993) Lotze, 1979

A B 38+9 ha Georgia/coastal island USEPA (1993) Lotze, 1979

A M 51 +68 ha Georgia/coastal island USEPA (1993) Lotze, 1979

A F 6+10 ha Georgia/coastal island USEPA (1993) Lotze, 1979

-- 8.31 ha urban USEPA (1993) Cauley & Schinner 1973

B F 165 ha Maryland/varied USEPA (1993) Sherfy & Chapman 1980

B M 285 ha Maryland/varied USEPA (1993) Sherfy & Chapman 1980

F 122 ha Maryland/varied USEPA (1993) Sherfy & Chapman 1980

TABLE D-2

SUMMARY OF HOME RANGE INFORMATION FOR SELECT WILDLIFE RECEPTORS



PORT EWEN, NEW YORKSpecies Measurement Age/Sex/Cond./Seas. Mean +SD Range Units Location/habitat Source

Original

Reference1

Raccoon (cont.) F 207 ha Maryland/varied USEPA (1993) Sherfy & Chapman 1980

B B 289 ha Maryland/varied USEPA (1993) Sherfy & Chapman 1980

B B 433.7 ha Maryland/coastal plain USEPA (1993) Sherfy & Chapman 1980

B B spring 231 ha Maryland/Piedmont USEPA (1993) Sherfy & Chapman 1980

B B spring 275 ha Maryland/Appalachian USEPA (1993) Sherfy & Chapman 1980

B B 37.4 ha Maryland/urban USEPA (1993) Sherfy & Chapman 1980

58 ha -- NYSDEC (pers. comm)

-- 48.4 ha Lake Erie, Ohio/Sandusky Bay marsh USEPA (1993) Urban 1970

Red Fox Territory Size A B summer 1611 277 to 3420 ha nw British Columbia/alpine and subalpine USEPA (1993) Jones & Theberge, 1982

A M summer 1967 514 to 3420 ha nw British Columbia/alpine and subalpine USEPA (1993) Jones & Theberge, 1982

A F summer 1137 277 to 1870 ha nw British Columbia/alpine and subalpine USEPA (1993) Jones & Theberge, 1982

-- max 1040 ha prairie pothole USEPA (1993) Johnson, Siniff & Warner (unpubl)

-- max 1300 ha prairie pothole USEPA (1993) Johnson, Siniff & Warner (unpubl)

J M 335 90 to 580 ha nc Minnesota USEPA (1993) Kuehn & Berg 1981

J F 220 ha nc Minnesota USEPA (1993) Kuehn & Berg 1981

A F 620 330 to 980 ha nc Minnesota USEPA (1993) Kuehn & Berg 1981

B B 1990 ha Maine/forest and bogs USEPA (1993) Major & Sherburne 1987

-- 1037 ha Wisconsin USEPA (1993) Pils et al. 1981

A F spring 699+137 596 to 855 ha ec Minnesota/woods, fields, swamp USEPA (1993) Sargeant, 1972

A B 1190+550 330 to 2140 ha/family North Dakota/prairie farmland USEPA (1993) Sargeant et al. 1987

-- 960 ha/family -- USEPA (1993) Storm et al. 1976

J B summer 72.5 ha sw NY/farm & woods USEPA (1993) Tullar & Berchielli 1980

-- 900 ha Ontario Canada/farmland USEPA (1993) Voigt & Tinline 1980

A M all year 717 ha Wisconsin/diverse USEPA (1993) Ables, 1969

A F all year 96 57 to 170 ha Wisconsin/diverse USEPA (1993) Ables, 1969

A M 512 ha Wisconsin/diverse farmland USEPA (1993) Ables, 1969

J M 78 ha Wisconsin/diverse USEPA (1993) Ables, 1969

Y F 167 142 to 191 ha Wisconsin/diverse USEPA (1993) Ables, 1969

Short-tailed Shrew Home Range A F summer <0.1 to 0.36 ha s Michigan/bluegrass USEPA (1993) Blair, 1940

A M summer <0.1 to 1.8 ha s Michigan/bluegrass USEPA (1993) Blair, 1940

F summer 0.23 to 0.59 ha Michigan/hardwood forest USEPA (1993) Blair, 1940

M summer max 0.56 ha Michigan/hardwood forest USEPA (1993) Blair, 1940

B B all 0.39+0.036 ha Manitoba/tamarack bog USEPA (1993) Buckner, 1966

B B winter (high prey density) 0.03 to 0.07 ha c NY/old field USEPA (1993) Platt, 1976

B B winter (low prey density) 0.10 to 0.22 ha c NY/old field USEPA (1993) Platt, 1976

Notes:

Shaded cells indicate home range values incorprated into dose rate models.

SD - Standard deviation

ha -hectares

km - kilometers

Life stage Sex

J - juvenile B - both sexes

A - adult F - female

B - both adults and juveniles M - male

Y - yearling

I - incubating

TABLE D-3

SEDIMENT TO INVERTEBRATE UPTAKE EQUATIONS - SQT STATIONS



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

ConstituentSediment to Aquatic Stage

Invertebrates

Sediment to Emergent

Invertebrates

Cadmium Cai = 0.1327 x Cs - 0.0027 Cei = Cai x 0.515

Copper Cai = 0.0319 x Cs + 66.246 Cei = Cai x 0.299

Lead Cai = 0.0127 x Cs + 0.6769 Cei = Cai x 0.226

Mercury Cai = (0.1349 x Cs-0.834

) x Cs Cei = Cai x 2.2

Methylmercury Cai = (0.082 x Cs-1.221


Selenium Cai = 0.185 x Cs Cei = Cai x 0.4

Zinc Cai = (72.911 x Cs-0.926


Notes:

Cai, Concentration in aquatic life stage invertebrates

Cei, Concentration in emergent life stage invertebrates

Cs, Concentration in sediment

TABLE D-4

SUMMARY OF CORRECTION FACTORS APPLIED TO AQUATIC LIFE STAGE INVERTEBRATE TISSUE DATA TO ESTIMATE CONCENTRATIONS IN EMERGENT LIFE

STAGE INVERTEBRATES



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Target Metal Relavent Studies Basis for Correction Factor

Correction Factor Applied to Aquatic

Life Stage Concentration to Estimate

Emergent Life Stage Concentration

Groenendijk et al. (1999)

Currie et al. (1997)

pH

4.4

5.1

5.3-5.5

5.8-6.3

[Adult]/[Larvae]

123/136 = 0.904

123/253 = 0.486

67/91 = 0.736

23/77 = 0.299

pH

4.4

5.1

5.3-5.5

5.8-6.3

[Adult]/[Larvae]

69/87 = 0.852

52/72 = 0.722

11/43 = 0.256

7/31 = 0.226

Mercury/

MethylmercuryChetelat et al. (2008)

Assumptions:

- Mass of mercury does not change through metamorphosis

- Approximately 10% body weight lost during metamorphosis

- Approximatly 50% body weight lost during the adult stage of a

non-feeding invertbrate (ranges from 10 - 50%)

1/(0.1×0.5) = 1/0.45 = 2.2

2.2

Selenium Reinfelder and Fisher (1994)

Assuming a similar partitioning of selenium in aquatic insects

(i.e. 59.2 to 61% associated with the exoskeleton in the final

molt), approximately 40% of selenium found in aquatic stage

invertebrates would remain in emergent invertebrates following

molting.

0.4

Groenendijk et al. (1999)

pH

5.3-5.5

5.8-6.3

[Adult]/[Larvae]

343/442 = 0.776

315/383 = 0.822

0.515

Minimum shedding efficiency of Chironomus

riparius from metal polluted sites in the River

Dommel ranged from 99.5- 99.9% based on

analyses of 112-165 imagoes / 100 larvae

Lead Krantzberg and Stokes (1988)

Zinc

Groenendijk et al. (1999) directly measured shedding efficiency

of a relevant species (Chironomus ) to the SWMU 1/22

Wetland Complex; the most conservative shedding efficiency

reported in this study (72.1%) was used as the correction

factor in dose rate models.

(1.0 - 0.721 = 0.189)

0.189

Chetelat et al. (2008) indicates that the mass of

mercury remains consistent during metamorphis; the

loss of body weight during metamorphosis and

subsequent body weight loss during the adult stage

of non-feeding insects represent an increase in

mercury body burden through metamorphosis

Summary of Data

Reported shedding efficiencies for:

Ephemeroptera: 55%

Trichoptera: 48.5%

Odonata: 92%

0.226

Reinfelder and Fisher (1994) found that 59.2% of

75Se was bound to the exoskeleton of copepods.

Reinfelder and Fisher (1994) also cite Bertine and

Goldberg (1972) who reported that 61% of the

selenium in shrimp was due to exoskeleton binding.

Cadmium

Shedding efficiencies identified in the literature ranged from

48.5% (trichoptera) to 99.9% (Chironomus). The most

conservative shedding efficiency of 48.5% was used to

estimate the proportion of cadmium remaining after

metamporphosis (1.0 - 0.485 = 0.515).

Copper Krantzberg and Stokes (1988)

Ratios of adult:larval copper concentrations (ng/indv)

were estimated over a range of surface water pH:pH in near bottom water in SWMU 1/22 was greater than 6.3 at

all stations except SQT-03; therefore, the correction factor was

based on the ratio of adult to larval lead concentrations

reported for the 5.8 - 6.3 pH range.

0.299

Krantzberg and Stokes (1988)

Ratios of adult:larval zinc concentrations (ng/indv)

were estimated over a range of surface water pH:

Ratios of adult:larval lead concentrations (ng/indv)

were estimated over a range of surface water pH:pH in near bottom water in SWMU 1/22 was greater than 6.3 at

all stations except SQT-03; therefore, the correction factor was

based on the ratio of adult to larval lead concentrations

reported for the 5.8 - 6.3 pH range.

Minimum shedding efficiency of Chironomus

riparius from metal polluted sites in the River

Dommel range from 72.1-89.6% based on analyses

of 112-165 imagoes / 100 larvae

TABLE D-5

SUMMARY OF AREA USE FACTORS APPLIED TO DOSE RATE MODELS



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Length

(km)Area (ha)

Northern

Grids

Southern

Grids

Northern +

Southern GridsAUFNorth AUFSouth AUFNorth+South

SWMU 1/22

Indiana bat 61.4 ha 5.2 0.08

Belted kingfisher 1.03 km 1.94 1

Great blue heron 3.1 km 1.94 0.63

Mallard 111 ha 5.2 0.05

Mink 1.85 km 1.94 1.00

Raccoon 58 ha 5.2 0.09

Tree swallow 0.1 km 1.94 1

Active Plant

American robin 0.4 ha 3 3 42 1.0 1.0 1.0

Red-tailed hawk 233 ha 3 3 42 0.013 0.013 0.180

Short-tailed shrew 0.07 ha 3 3 42 1.0 1.0 1.0

Red fox 72.5 ha 3 3 42 0.041 0.041 0.579

Not Evaluated

Not Evaluated

SWMU

1/22 AUF

Size of Active Plant Exposure Areas (ha) Active Plant AUFsCommon

NameHome Range

Home

Range

Units

Size of SWMU 1/22

Exposure Area

TABLE D-6

SUMMARY OF TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES FOR AVIAN AND MAMMALIAN RECEPTORS



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Chronic

NOAELa

Chronic

LOAELb

Chronic

NOAELa

Chronic

LOAELb

Metals

Antimony NA NA -- -- 13.3 NA geometric meanc USEPA Eco-SSL

Arsenic 2.24 4.51lowest NOAEL/geometric

meanc of LOAEL values

USEPA Eco-SSL 3.9 7.8 geometric meand USEPA Eco-SSL

Barium 20.8 41.7 1-d old chicks Johnson et al. (1960) 51.8 82.7 geometric meanc USEPA Eco-SSL

Cadmium 1.1 4.9 geometric meand USEPA Eco-SSL 1.6 5.8 geometric mean

d USEPA Eco-SSL

Chromium 4.6 14.5 geometric meand USEPA Eco-SSL 2.4 58.2 geometric mean

c USEPA Eco-SSL

Cobalt 5.6 16.9 geometric meand USEPA Eco-SSL 5 20 geometric mean

d USEPA Eco-SSL

Copper 9.1 16.5 geometric meand USEPA Eco-SSL 22.3 40.8 geometric mean

d USEPA Eco-SSL

Lead 3.8 24.8 geometric meand USEPA Eco-SSL 30.5 100.5 geometric mean

d USEPA Eco-SSL

Mercury 0.45 0.91 japanese quail Hill and Schaffer (1976) 1 7 mouse/ratAulerich et al. (1974) (NOAEL)

Rizzo and Faust (1972) (LOAEL)

Methylmercury 0.026 0.078 mallardHeinz (1979), as cited in USEPA

(1997)0.022 0.18 mink

Wobeser et al. (1976a, 1976b), as

cited in USEPA (1997)

Selenium 0.400 0.8 mallard Heinz et al. (1989) 0.2 0.33 rat Rosenfeld and Beath (1954)

Silver 2.02 60.5 geometric meanc USEPA Eco-SSL 6.02 119 geometric mean

c USEPA Eco-SSL

Zinc 54.5 93.9 geometric meand USEPA Eco-SSL 116.3 635.9 geometric mean

d USEPA Eco-SSL

Notes:

a, NOAEL is no observable adverse effects level.

b, LOAEL is the lowest observable adverse effects level.

c, TRV represents the geometric means of endpoints for growth and reproduction from studies accepted by USEPA for the derivation of Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs)

d, TRV represents the geometric means of endpoints for growth and reproduction from the lowest bounded LOAEL feeding studies (maximum 10 studies) accepted by USEPA for the derivation of Eco-SSLs

-- Appropriate data are not available from published literature to derive NOAEL and LOAEL values.

NA, Toxicity Reference Value not available.

Analytes

Avian Receptors Mammalian Receptors

Test Animal Source Test Animal Source

(mg/kg-bw/d) (mg/kg-bw/d)

TABLE D-7

SUMMARY OF LOWEST BOUNDED LOAEL FEEDING STUDIES FOR AVIAN TEST ORGANISMS - USEPA ECO-SSL DATABASE



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Metal Reference1 Endpoint Test Organism

Route of

Exposure

Exposure

Duration

Duration

UnitsAge Age Units Lifestage Sex Effect Type

Effect

Measure

Response

Site

NOAEL

Dose

(mg/kg

LOAEL

Dose

(mg/kg

Leach et al, 1978 Reproduction Chicken (Gallus domesticus) FD 12 w 8 mo LB F REP EGPN WO 0.593 2.37

Leach et al, 1978 Reproduction Chicken (Gallus domesticus) FD 12 mo 6 mo LB F REP PROG WO 0.593 2.37

Bokori et al, 1996 Reproduction Chicken (Gallus domesticus) FD 39 w 14 d IM M REP TEWT TE 0.799 2.4

Leach et al, 1978 Growth Chicken (Gallus domesticus) FD 6 w 1 d JV M GRO BDWT WO 0.826 3.3

Hill 1979 Growth Chicken (Gallus domesticus) FD 2 w 1 d JV F GRO BDWT WO 1.72 3.44

Hill, 1974 Growth Chicken (Gallus domesticus) FD 2 w 1 d JV B GRO BDWT WO 1.72 3.44

Bokori et al, 1996 Growth Chicken (Gallus domesticus) FD 4 w 14 d JV M GRO BDWT WO 1.55 4.66

Lefevre et al, 1982 Growth Chicken (Gallus domesticus) FD 5 w 1 d JV NR GRO BDWT WO 0.708 7.08

White and Finley, 1978 Reproduction Mallard (Anas platyrhychos) FD 90 d 1 yr AD F REP Other NR 1.53 21.1

White et al 1978 Reproduction Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) FD 90 d 1 yr AD B REP TEWT TE 1.53 21.1

Geometric Mean: 1.1 4.9

Chromium

Haseltine et al., unpublished Reproduction Black duck (Anas rubripes FD 180-190 d NR NR LB F REP RSUC WO 0.569 2.78

Meluzzi et al., 1996 Reproduction Chicken (Gallus domesticus ) FD 15 d 22 w LB F EGG ALWT EG 37.7 75.4


Cobalt

Hill, 1979 Growth Chicken (Gallus domesticus) FD 5 w 1 d JV F GRO BDWT WO 3.89 7.8

Ling et al., 1979 Growth Chicken (Gallus domesticus) FD 3 w 1 d JV M GRO BDWT WO 4.1 8.2

Hill, 1974 Growth Chicken (Gallus domesticus) FD 2 w 1 d JV B GRO BDWT WO 4.29 8.59

Paulov, 1971 Growth Chicken (Gallus domesticus) FD 8 d 2 d JV NR GRO BDWT WO 14.8 148


Copper

Kashani et al, 1986 Growth (Melagris gallopavo ) FD 8 w 1 d JV M GRO BDWT WO 2.34 4.68

McGhee et al, 1965 Growth (Gallus domesticus ) FD 4 w NR NR JV NR GRO BDWT WO 3.83 7.67

Ankari et al, 1998 Reproduction (Gallus domesticus ) FD 84 d 25 w LB F REP EGPN WO 4.05 12.1

Gill et al, 1995 Growth (Gallus domesticus ) FD 3 w 4 w JV M GRO BDWT WO 9.52 19

Harms and Buresh, 1986 Reproduction (Gallus domesticus ) FD 6 w 64 w LB F REP EGPN WO 13.9 19.5

Jackson and Stevenson, 1981 Reproduction (Gallus domesticus ) FD 280 d 18 w LB F EGG EGWT EG 15.6 23.3

Nam et al, 1984 Growth (Gallus domesticus ) FD 4 w 3 d JV NR GRO BDWT WO 12.2 24.3

Miles et al, 1998 Growth (Gallus domesticus ) FD 42 d 1 d JV B GRO BDWT WO 16.5 24.7

Jackson and Stevenson, 1981 Reproduction (Gallus domesticus ) FD 336 d 26 w LB F REP EGPN WO 17 25.5

Funk and Baker, 1991 Growth (Gallus domesticus ) FD 14 d 8 d JV M GRO BDWT WO 15.7 25.8


Lead

Edens and Garlich, 1983 Reproduction Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica) FD 5 w 6 w LB F REP PROG WO 0.194 1.94

Edens and Garlich, 1983 Reproduction Chicken (Gallus domesticus ) FD 4 w NR NR LB F REP PROG WO 1.63 3.26

Meluzzi et al., 1996 Reproduction Chicken (Gallus domesticus ) FD 30 d 22 w LB F EGG ALWT EG 2.69 4.04

Edens and Garlich, 1983 Growth Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica ) FD 5 w 1 d JV F GRO BDWT WO 1.56 15.6

Edens and Melvin, 1989 Growth Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica ) FD 4 w 0 d JV F GRO BDWT WO 5.93 59.3

Damron et al, 1969 Growth Chicken (Gallus domesticus ) FD 4 w 4 w JV NR GRO BDWT WO 6.14 61.4

Morgan et al., 1975 Growth Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica ) FD 1 w 1 d JV NR GRO BDWT WO 13.5 67.4

Damron et al, 1969 Growth Chicken (Gallus domesticus ) FD 4 w 4 w JV NR GRO BDWT WO 7.1 71

Edens et al., 1976 Growth Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica ) FD 12 w 0 d JV F GRO BDWT WO 11.1 111

Edens, 1985 Growth Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica ) FD 12 w 1 w JV F GRO BDWT WO 11.2 112


Zinc

Gibson et al, 1986 Reproduction Chicken (Gallus domesticus) FD 10 w 30 w JV F REP PROG WO 57.3 66.5

Stevenson et al, 1987 Reproduction Chicken (Gallus domesticus) FD 140 d 28 w JV F REP PROG WO 63.9 76.7

Stevenson et al, 1987 Reproduction Chicken (Gallus domesticus) FD 140 d 28 w LB F REP PROG WO 67.8 84.8

Hamilton et al, 1981 Growth Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica) FD 14 d 1 d JV B GRO BDWT WO 43.3 86.6

Jensen and Maurice, 1980 Reproduction Chicken (Gallus domesticus) FD 6 w NR NR LB F REP PROG WO 24.7 98.8

Jackson et al, 1986 Growth Chicken (Gallus domesticus) FD 140 d 40 w SM F GRO BDWT WO 55 105

Jackson et al, 1986 Reproduction Chicken (Gallus domesticus) FD 140 d 40 w LB F REP PROG WO 55 105

Sandoval et al, 1998 Growth Chicken (Gallus domesticus) FD 3 w 1 d JV M GRO BDWT WO 70.6 106

Berg and Martinson, 1972 Growth Chicken (Gallus domesticus) FD 2 w 1 d JV NR GRO BDWT WO 55.3 111

Roberson and Schaible, 1960 Growth Chicken (Gallus domesticus) FD 4 w 1 d JV M GRO BDWT WO 74.3 111


Notes (From USEPA Eco-SSL guidance):

1, Complete study citations may be found in USEPA Eco-SSL guidance documents (USEPA, 2007); available at http://www.epa.gov/ecotox/ecossl/

Cadmium

AR=adrenal; ATPT = adenosine triphosphate; B = both; BDWT = body weight changes; BL = blood; BLPR = blood pressure; bw = body weight; CHM = chemical; d =

days; DR = drinking water; EDMA = edema; ENZ = enzyme; F = female; FCNS = food consumption; FD = food; FDB = feeding behavior; GRO = Growth;

GV=gavage; HE= heart; HIS = histology; HTRT = heart rate; JV = juvenile; kg = kilogram; KI = kidney; LI = liver; LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level; M

= measured; M = male; mg = milligram; mo = months; MOR = effects on survival; MORT = mortality; NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level; NR = not reported;

ORW = organ weight changes; ORWT = organ weight; OV = ovary; PHOS = phosphate; PHY = physiology; REP = reproduction; RHIS = reproductive organ

histology; Score = Total Data Evaluation Score as described in US EPA (2003; Attachment 4-3); SMIX = organ weight changes relative to body weight; SR = serum;

TE = testes; U = unmeasured; UREA = urea; UX = reported as measured but measurements not reported; w = weeks; WCON = water consumption; WO = whole

TABLE D-8

SUMMARY OF LOWEST BOUNDED LOAEL FEEDING STUDIES FOR MAMMALIAN TEST ORGANISMS - USEPA ECO-SSL DATABASE



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Metal Reference1 Endpoint Test Organism

Route of

Exposure

Exposure

Duration

Duration

UnitsAge Age Units Lifestage Sex Effect Type

Effect

Measure

Response

Site

NOAEL

Dose

(mg/kg

LOAEL

Dose

(mg/kg Arsenic

Neiger and Osweiler 1989 Growth Dog (Canis familiaris ) FD 8 w 8 mo JV F GRO BDWT WO 1.04 1.66

Byron et al, 1967 Growth Dog (Canis familiaris ) FD 2 yr 6 mo JV B GRO BDWT WO 2.25 5.62

Byron et al, 1967 Growth Rat (Rattus norvegicus ) FD 12 w NR NR JV B GRO BDWT WO 9.84 19.7

Byron et al, 1967 Growth Rat (Rattus norvegicus ) FD 12 w NR NR JV M GRO BDWT WO 10.3 20.6


Cadmium

Doyle et al, 1974 Growth Sheep (Ovis aires) FD 163 d 4 mo JV M GRO BDWT WO 0.448 0.909

Cousins et al 1977 Growth Rat (Rattus norvegicus) FD 14 w NR NR JV M GRO BDWT WO 0.268 1.3

Sawicka-Kapusta et al 1994 Reproduction Mouse (Mus musculus) FD 6 d NR NR GE F REP DEYO WO 1.14 2.28

Takashima et al 1980 Growth Rat (Rattus norvegicus) FD 19 mo NR NR JV M MPH GMPH BO 1.04 5.2

Chetty et al, 1980 Growth Rat (Rattus norvegicus) FD 4 w NR NR JV M GRO BDWT WO 4.36 8.71

Yuyama 1982 Growth Rat (Rattus norvegicus) FD 2 w 5 w JV M GRO BDWT WO 2.65 10.6

Bhattacharyya et al, 1988 Growth Mouse (Mus musculus) FD 252 d 68 d GE F GRO BDWT WO 1.08 10.8

Cousins et al., 1973 Growth Pig (Sus scrofa) FD 6 w 55 d JV M GRO BDWT WO 4.05 12.1

Gustafson and Mercer, 1984 Growth Rat (Rattus norvegicus) FD 21 d NR NR JV M GRO BDWT WO 6.06 15.2

Mitsumori et al., 1998 Growth Rat (Rattus norvegicus) FD 4 d 5 w JV F GRO BDWT WO 3.08 15.4


Cobalt

Nation et al., 1983 Reproduction Rat (R. norvegicus ) FD 69 d 80 d MA M REP TEWT TE 5 20

Geometric Mean: 5 20

Copper

Aulerich et al, 1982 Reproduction Mink (Mustela vision) FD 357 d NR mo JV F REP PROG WO 3.4 6.79

Allcroft et al, 1961 Growth Pig (Sus scrofa) FD 4 w 40400 w JV B GRO BDWT WO 5.6 9.34

Brandt, 1983 Growth Mink (Mustela vision) FD 4 mo 90 d JV M GRO BDWT WO 10.2 19.6

Edmonds and Baker, 1986 Growth Pig (Sus scrofa) FD 28 d 4 w JV NR GRO BDWT WO 10.3 26.9

Suttle and Mills, 1966 Growth Pig (Sus scrofa) FD 14 d NR NR JV F GRO BDWT WO 16.2 27.6

Grobner et al, 1986 Growth Rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) FD 28 d 28 d JV NR GRO BDWT WO 27.7 45.7

Hebert, 1993 Growth Rat (Rattus norvegicus) FD 13 w 6 w JV B GRO BDWT WO 49.8 99.6

Lecyk, 1980 Reproduction Mouse (Mus musculus) FD 49 d NR NR GE B REP PROG WO 90.9 136

Lecyk, 1980 Reproduction Mouse (Mus musculus) FD 49 d NR NR GE B REP PROG WO 90.9 136

Hebert, 1993 Growth Rat (Rattus norvegicus) FD 15 d 6 w JV B GRO BDWT WO 82.5 165


Lead

Azar et al., 1973 Survival (Rattus norvegicus ) FD 2 yr NR NR NR M MOR MORT WO 10.9 42.4

Logner et al., 1984 Survival (Bos taurus ) FD 10 d 74 d JV M MOR MORT WO 16 43

Jessup and Shott, 1969 Reproduction (Rattus norvegicus ) FD 92 w 21 d JV M REP TEWT TE 7.5 74.9

Azar et al., 1973 Survival (Rattus norvegicus ) FD 2 yr NR NR NR M MOR MORT WO 87.5 163

Mykkanen et al., 1980 Growth (Rattus norvegicus ) FD 1 w NR NR LC F GRO BDWT WO 230 460


Zinc

Miller et al., 1989 Reproduction Cattle (Bos taurus) FD 14 w NR NR LC F REP PRWT WO 37.9 75.9

Hill et. al., 1983 Reproduction Pig (Sus scrofa) FD 12 mo 8-Jul mo GE F REP ODVP WO 8.23 82.3

Brink et al, 1959 Growth Pig (Sus scrofa) FD 42 d NR NR JV NR GRO BDWT WO 43.5 87.1

Hill et. al., 1983 Growth Pig (Sus scrofa) FD 8 mo 8-Jul mo GE F GRO GGRO WO 10.3 103

Ketcheson et al, 1969 Reproduction Rat (Rattus norvegicus) FD 14 d NR NR LC F REP PRWT WO 181 452

Maita et al, 1981 Growth Rat (Rattus norvegicus) FD 13 w 5 w JV M GRO BDWT WO 234 2514

Maita et al, 1981 Reproduction Rat (Rattus norvegicus) FD 13 w 5 w JV M REP ORWT TE 234 2514

Pettersen, et al, 2002 Growth Mouse (Mus musculus) FD 3 w 4 w JV B GRO BDWT WO 1419 2838

Maita et al, 1981 Growth Mouse (Mus musculus) FD 13 w 5 w JV F GRO BDWT WO 479 4878

Maita et al, 1981 Reproduction Mouse (Mus musculus) FD 13 w 5 w JV F REP ORWT OV 479 4878

Geometric Mean: 116.255344 635.89615

Notes (From USEPA Eco-SSL guidance):

1, Complete study citations may be found in USEPA Eco-SSL guidance documents (USEPA, 2007); available at http://www.epa.gov/ecotox/ecossl/

AR=adrenal; ATPT = adenosine triphosphate; B = both; BDWT = body weight changes; BL = blood; BLPR = blood pressure; bw = body weight; CHM = chemical; d =

days; DR = drinking water; EDMA = edema; ENZ = enzyme; F = female; FCNS = food consumption; FD = food; FDB = feeding behavior; GRO = Growth;

GV=gavage; HE= heart; HIS = histology; HTRT = heart rate; JV = juvenile; kg = kilogram; KI = kidney; LI = liver; LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level; M

= measured; M = male; mg = milligram; mo = months; MOR = effects on survival; MORT = mortality; NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level; NR = not reported;

ORW = organ weight changes; ORWT = organ weight; OV = ovary; PHOS = phosphate; PHY = physiology; REP = reproduction; RHIS = reproductive organ

histology; Score = Total Data Evaluation Score as described in US EPA (2003; Attachment 4-3); SMIX = organ weight changes relative to body weight; SR = serum;

TE = testes; U = unmeasured; UREA = urea; UX = reported as measured but measurements not reported; w = weeks; WCON = water consumption; WO = whole

TABLE D-9

SUMMARY OF TOTAL MERCURY STUDIES FOR MAMMALIAN RECEPTORS



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

FormTest

Organism

Method of

exposureEndpoint Source Comments

Mercuric Chloride Mink 1 mg/kg bw/day diet reproduction Aulerich et al. 1974 (Sample et al. 1996)

Mercuric Sulfide Mouse 13.3 mg/kg bw/day diet reproduction/survivalRevis et al., 1989 (Sample et al. 1996; used

by Opresko et al. 1994 to dervive other TRVs)

Inorganic Rat 14 mg/kg bw/day dietReproductive,

developmental

Fitzhugh et al., 1950 (USEPA (Great Lakes),

1995)

Great Lakes Water Quality initiative Criteria

Documents for the Protection of Wildlife (EPA-820\b-95\008)

Inorganic Rat 7 mg/kg bw/day diet developmentRizzo and Furst 1972 (USEPA (Great Lakes),

1995)

Mercuric Chloride Rat 56 mg/kg bw/day diet growth Fitzhugh et al. 1950

Mercuric Chloride rat 0.64 mg/kg bw/day gavage/injectionimmune

system/kidney

Knoflach et al., 1986; (used by Opresko et al.

1994 to dervive other TRVs)

Mercury chloride was dissolved in tap water and administered

through gavage

Mercuric Chloride rat 0.23 mg/kg bw/daygavage - de-

ionized waternephropathy IPCS 2003 (Dieter et al. 1992; NTP 1993)

Mercuric Chloride Rat 1.9 mg/kg bw/day 3.7 mg/kg bw/daygavage - de-

ionized waterResp Dieter et al. 1992; NTP 1993

Mercuric Chloride Rat 0.226 mg/kg bw/daygavage - de-

ionized waterMortality Andres 1984 Administered by using an esophageal metallic sound.

Mercuric Chloride Rat 0.317 mg/kg bw/day gavage Autoimmune Bernaudin et al. 1981 Study described gavage process as only "forcible feeding."

Mercuric Chloride Rat 0.633 mg/kg bw/day injection kidney/neurological Druet et al. 1978

Used by EPA's mercury workgroup to derive oral RfD with Andres

1984 and Bernaudin et al 1981. despite using injection instead of

oral exposure.

Mercuric Chloride Rat - male 1.9 mg/kg bw/daygavage - de-

ionized waterMortality Dieter et al. 1992; NTP 1993

Mercuric Chloride Rat - male 1.9 mg/kg bw/daygavage - de-

ionized waterGastro/Renal/Bd wt Dieter et al. 1992; NTP 1993

Mercuric Chloride Rat 3.7 mg/kg bw/daygavage - de-

ionized waterCancer Dieter et al. 1992; NTP 1993

Mercuric Chloride Mouse 3.7 mg/kg bw/daygavage - de-

ionized waterRenal Dieter et al. 1992; NTP 1993

Notes:

Shaded cells indicate selected mammalian TRVs for inorganic mercury

NOAEL LOAEL

Study conducted by the National Toxicology Program and

summarized in Dieter et al. 1992. Mercuric chloride was

administered by de-ionized water through gavage.

Study conducted by the National Toxicology Program and

summarized in Dieter et al. 1992. Mercuric chloride was

administered by de-ionized water through gavage.

FIGURE D-1

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AQUATIC LIFE STAGE INVERTEBRATE TISSUE AND SEDIMENT CONCENTRATIONS - SQT STATIONS



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

FIGURE D-2

SEDIMENT TO AQUATIC LIFE STAGE INVERTEBRATE BIOTA-SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION FACTORS DERIVED FROM SQT STATIONS



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

APPENDIX E

Port Ewen, New York Appendix E

App E DRM Calculations.docx Fort Washington, PA i

Dose Rate Model Calculations FWIA Step IIC Investigation Dyno Nobel Port Ewen Site

This appendix presents the calculations for dose rate models developed to evaluate

wildlife ingestion pathways in the FWIA Step IIC investigation of the Dyno Nobel Port

Ewen Site. Model results are provided by exposure area in the order presented in the

FWIA Step IIC Report:


� Summary of Aquatic Exposure Point Concentrations: Table E-1

� Maximum Area Use Exposure Estimates: Table E-2 to Table E-8

� Adjusted Area Use Exposure Estimates: Table E-9 to Table E-12

Active Plant Area

Northern Grids:

� Summary of Terrestrial Exposure Point Concentrations: Table E-13


Southern Grids:



Northern and Southern Grids:



� Adjusted Area Use Exposure Estimates: Table E-26 to Table E-27

TABLE E-1

SUMMARY OF AQUATIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS - SWMU 1/22 WETLAND COMPLEX



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Estimated

ConcentrationReference

Estimated

Concentrationd Reference

Estimated


Estimated


Metals

Cadmium 8.95 0.001 1.26 Measured UCL95a

0.648Measured UCL95

b x 0.515

(Currie et al. 1999)0.049 Measured UCL95

c0.080 Measured UCL95

c

Copper 9468 0.0186 309.7 Measured UCL95a

92.6Measured UCL95

b x 0.299

(Krantzberg and Stokes 1988)11.0 Measured UCL95

c9.7 Measured UCL95

c

Lead 1085 0.00096 11.2 Measured UCL95a

2.53Measured UCL95

b x 0.226

(Krantzberg and Stokes 1988)0.61 Measured UCL95


c

Mercury 41.29 0.0002 0.455 Measured UCL95a

1.00Measured UCL95

b x 2.2

(Chetelat et al. 2008)0.47 Measured UCL95


c

Methylmercury NA NA 0.092 Measured UCL95a

0.20Measured UCL95

b x 2.2

(Chetelat et al. 2008)0.47 Measured UCL95


c

Selenium 118.9 0.005 18.7 Measured UCL95a

7.47Measured UCL95

x 0.4

(Reinfelder and Fisher 1994)5.61 Measured UCL95


c

Zinc 909 0.0072 130.8 Measured UCL95a

24.7Measured UCL95

b x 0.189

(Groenendijk et al. 1999)225.6 Measured UCL95


c

Notes:

a, 95 percent upper confidence limit of the mean concentration (UCL95) of non-depurated 'market-basket' invertebrate tissues analyzed from SQT stations within SWMU 1/22

b, Assumes equivalent concentration to measured aquatic life stage invertebrates

c, 95 percent upper confidence limit of the mean concentration (UCL95) of non-depurated forage and predatory fish tissues analyzed from within and downstream of SWMU 1/22

d, Estimated concentration in aquatic stage benthic invertebrates multiplied by a correction factor to account for the loss/gain in metal body burden that occurs during metamorphosis (See Appendix D).

Analyte

Sediment Exposure

Point Concentration

(mg/kg, dry weight)

Aquatic Life Stage Invertebrates Forage Fish All Fish

Exposure Point Concentrations for Dietary Items of Semi-Aquatic Receptors (mg/kg, dry weight)

Emergent Life Stage InvertebratesSurface Water

Exposure Point

Concentration (mg/L)

TABLE E-2

GREAT BLUE HERON

MAXIMUM AREA USE EXPOSURE ESTIMATE - SWMU 1/22 WETLAND COMPLEX



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Water Substrate

Sediment/Soil

(mg/kg)

Surface Water

(mg/L)

Aquatic

Invertebrates

(mg/kg, dw)

Emergent

Invertebrates

(mg/kg, dw)

All Fish

(mg/kg, dw)

Body

Weight

(kg)

Dietary

(kg dw/day)

Substrate

(kg dw/day)

Water

(L/day)

Aq

uat

ic

Inve

rteb

rate

s

Em

erg

ent

Inve

rteb

rate

s

Fis

h

Aq

uat

ic

Inve

rteb

rate

s

Em

erg

ent

Inve

rteb

rate

s

Fis

h

Dosediet Dosewater Dosesubstrate TRVNOAEL HQNOAEL TRVLOAEL HQLOAEL

Metals

Cadmium 8.95 0.00 1.259 0.648 0.080 2.20 0.1396 0.0 0.1001 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.005 0.005 0.00005 0.0 0.005 1.10 <1 4.90 <1

Copper 9468.0 0.0 309.7 92.6 9.660 2.20 0.1396 0.0 0.1001 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.613 0.613 0.00085 0.0 0.614 9.10 <1 16.50 <1

Lead 1085.0 0.001 11.2 2.5 0.501 2.20 0.1396 0.0 0.1001 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.032 0.032 0.00004 0.0 0.032 3.80 <1 24.80 <1

Mercury 41.29 0.000 0.455 1.001 0.453 2.20 0.1396 0.0 0.1001 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.029 0.029 0.00001 0.0 0.029 0.45 <1 0.91 <1

Methylmercury NA NA 0.092 0.202 0.435 2.20 0.1396 0.0 0.1001 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.028 0.028 0.00000 0.0 0.028 0.03 1.1 0.08 <1

Selenium 118.9 0.01 18.67 7.47 6.478 2.20 0.1396 0.0 0.1001 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.411 0.411 0.00023 0.0 0.411 0.40 1.0 0.80 <1

Zinc 908.7 0.01 130.8 24.7 187.5 2.20 0.1396 0.0 0.1001 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.0 11.90 11.90 0.00033 0.0 11.90 54.50 <1 93.90 <1

Notes:

a, Total dose calculated as:

where: EDDdiet = Total dose of target obtained from the primary routes of exposure (mg metals/kg receptor body weight-day)


Cti = UCL95 concentration of constituent in dietary item i (mg /kg food item, dry weight)

DFi = Dietary fraction of food item i

AUF = Area use factor includes seasonal use rates , area use rates, COPC assimilation rate

BW = Body weight of the receptor, wet weight



SIRincidental = Incidental substrate ingestion rate (kg substrate ingested per day, dry weight)

Csubstrate = Constituent concentration in substrate (mg COPEC/kg substrate, dry weight)

NA, Not Available;

--, HQ not calculated because TRV was not availbale

Area Use

Factor

TRV (mg/kg bw-day)

NOAEL LOAEL

Analyte

Diet


Total Dose

Physical Dietary

Great Blue Heron Dose (mg/kg bw-day)Exposure Parameters

Ingestion RatesDietary Composition

(%)

BW

AUFCSIR

BW

AUFCIR

BW

AUFDFCIREDD substrateincidentalwaterwateritidiet

total

××+

××+

×××

=∑ )(

TABLE E-3

MALLARD




PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Water Substrate

Sediment/Soil

(mg/kg)

Surface Water

(mg/L)

Aquatic

Invertebrates

(mg/kg, dw)

Emergent

Invertebrates

(mg/kg, dw)

Forage Fish

(mg/kg, dw)

Body

Weight

(kg)

Dietary

(kg dw/day)

Substrate

(kg dw/day)

Water

(L/day)

Aq

uat

ic

Inve

rteb

rate

s

Em

erg

ent

Inve

rteb

rate

s

Fis

h

Aq

uat

ic

Inve

rteb

rate

s

Em

erg

ent

Inve

rteb

rate

s

Fis

h


Metals

Cadmium 8.95 0.00 1.259 0.648 0.049 1.04 0.0523 0.0007 0.0607 100% 0% 0% 1.0 0.063 0.0 0.0 0.063 0.00006 0.006 0.069 1.10 <1 4.90 <1

Copper 9468.0 0.0 309.7 92.6 10.970 1.04 0.0523 0.0007 0.0607 100% 0% 0% 1.0 15.53 0.0 0.0 15.53 0.00108 6.172 21.70 9.10 2.4 16.50 1.3

Lead 1085.0 0.001 11.2 2.5 0.612 1.04 0.0523 0.0007 0.0607 100% 0% 0% 1.0 0.562 0.0 0.0 0.562 0.00006 0.707 1.269 3.80 <1 24.80 <1

Mercury 41.29 0.000 0.455 1.001 0.470 1.04 0.0523 0.0007 0.0607 100% 0% 0% 1.0 0.023 0.0 0.0 0.023 0.00001 0.027 0.050 0.45 <1 0.91 <1

Methylmercury NA NA 0.092 0.202 0.474 1.04 0.0523 0.0007 0.0607 100% 0% 0% 1.0 0.005 0.0 0.0 0.005 0.00000 0.0 0.005 0.03 <1 0.08 <1

Selenium 118.9 0.01 18.67 7.47 5.605 1.04 0.0523 0.0007 0.0607 100% 0% 0% 1.0 0.936 0.0 0.0 0.936 0.00029 0.078 1.014 0.40 2.5 0.80 1.3

Zinc 908.7 0.01 130.8 24.7 225.6 1.04 0.0523 0.0007 0.0607 100% 0% 0% 1.0 6.559 0.0 0.0 6.559 0.00042 0.592 7.152 54.50 <1 93.90 <1

Notes:












NA, Not Available;


Mallard Dose (mg/kg bw-day)Exposure Parameters


(%)

Area Use

Factor

TRV (mg/kg bw-day)

NOAEL LOAEL

Analyte

Diet


Total Dose

Physical Dietary

BW

AUFCSIR

BW

AUFCIR

BW


total

××+

××+

×××

=∑ )(

TABLE E-4

BELTED KINGFISHER




PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Water Substrate

Sediment/Soil

(mg/kg)

Surface Water

(mg/L)

Aquatic

Invertebrates

(mg/kg, dw)

Emergent

Invertebrates

(mg/kg, dw)

Forage Fish

(mg/kg, dw)

Body

Weight

(kg)

Dietary

(kg dw/day)

Substrate

(kg dw/day)

Water

(L/day)

Aq

uat

ic

Inve

rteb

rate

s

Em

erg

ent

Inve

rteb

rate

s

Fis

h

Aq

uat

ic

Inve

rteb

rate

s

Em

erg

ent

Inve

rteb

rate

s

Fis

h


Metals

Cadmium 8.95 0.00 1.259 0.648 0.049 0.14 0.0221 0.0 0.0155 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.008 0.008 0.00011 0.0 0.008 1.10 <1 4.90 <1

Copper 9468.0 0.0 309.7 92.6 10.970 0.14 0.0221 0.0 0.0155 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.779 1.779 0.00212 0.0 1.781 9.10 <1 16.50 <1

Lead 1085.0 0.001 11.2 2.5 0.612 0.14 0.0221 0.0 0.0155 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.099 0.099 0.00011 0.0 0.099 3.80 <1 24.80 <1

Mercury 41.29 0.000 0.455 1.001 0.470 0.14 0.0221 0.0 0.0155 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.076 0.076 0.00002 0.0 0.076 0.45 <1 0.91 <1


Selenium 118.9 0.01 18.67 7.47 5.605 0.14 0.0221 0.0 0.0155 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.909 0.909 0.00057 0.0 0.909 0.40 2.3 0.80 1.1

Zinc 908.7 0.01 130.8 24.7 225.6 0.14 0.0221 0.0 0.0155 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.0 36.58 36.58 0.00082 0.0 36.58 54.50 <1 93.90 <1

Notes:












NA, Not Available;


Belted Kingfisher Dose (mg/kg bw-day)Exposure Parameters


(%)

Area Use

Factor

TRV (mg/kg bw-day)

NOAEL LOAEL

Analyte

Diet


Total Dose

Physical Dietary

BW

AUFCSIR

BW

AUFCIR

BW


total

××+

××+

×××

=∑ )(

TABLE E-5

TREE SWALLOW




PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Water

Sediment/Soil

(mg/kg)

Surface Water

(mg/L)

Aquatic

Invertebrates

(mg/kg, dw)

Emergent

Invertebrates

(mg/kg, dw)

Forage Fish

(mg/kg, dw)

Body

Weight

(kg)

Dietary

(kg dw/day)

Substrate

(kg dw/day)

Water

(L/day)

Aq

uat

ic

Inve

rteb

rate

s

Em

erg

ent

Inve

rteb

rate

s

Fis

h

Aq

uat

ic

Inve

rteb

rate

s

Em

erg

ent

Inve

rteb

rate

s

Fis

h

Dosediet Dosewater TRVNOAEL HQNOAEL TRVLOAEL HQLOAEL

Metals

Cadmium 8.95 0.00 1.259 0.648 0.049 0.02 0.0116 0.0 0.0044 0% 100% 0% 1.0 0.0 0.365 0.0 0.365 0.00021 0.365 1.10 <1 4.90 <1

Copper 9468.0 0.0 309.7 92.6 10.970 0.02 0.0116 0.0 0.0044 0% 100% 0% 1.0 0.0 52.1 0.0 52.1 0.00395 52.1 9.10 5.7 16.50 3.2

Lead 1085.0 0.001 11.2 2.5 0.612 0.02 0.0116 0.0 0.0044 0% 100% 0% 1.0 0.0 1.43 0.0 1.43 0.00020 1.43 3.80 <1 24.80 <1

Mercury 41.29 0.000 0.455 1.001 0.470 0.02 0.0116 0.0 0.0044 0% 100% 0% 1.0 0.0 0.564 0.0 0.564 0.00004 0.564 0.45 1.3 0.91 <1

Methylmercury NA NA 0.092 0.202 0.474 0.02 0.0116 0.0 0.0044 0% 100% 0% 1.0 0.0 0.113 0.0 0.113 0.00000 0.113 0.03 4.4 0.08 1.5

Selenium 118.9 0.01 18.67 7.47 5.605 0.02 0.0116 0.0 0.0044 0% 100% 0% 1.0 0.0 4.205 0.0 4.205 0.00106 4.206 0.40 10.5 0.80 5.3

Zinc 908.7 0.01 130.8 24.7 225.6 0.02 0.0116 0.0 0.0044 0% 100% 0% 1.0 0.0 13.92 0.0 13.92 0.00153 13.92 54.50 <1 93.90 <1

Notes:












NA, Not Available;


Tree Swallow Dose (mg/kg bw-day)Exposure Parameters


(%)

Area Use

Factor

TRV (mg/kg bw-day)

NOAEL LOAEL

Analyte

Diet


Total Dose

Physical Dietary

BW

AUFCSIR

BW

AUFCIR

BW


total

××+

××+

×××

=∑ )(

TABLE E-6

INDIANA BAT




PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Water Substrate

Sediment/Soil

(mg/kg)

Surface Water

(mg/L)

Aquatic

Invertebrates

(mg/kg, dw)

Emergent

Invertebrates

(mg/kg, dw)

Forage Fish

(mg/kg, dw)

Body

Weight

(kg)

Dietary

(kg dw/day)

Substrate

(kg dw/day)

Water

(L/day)

Aq

uat

ic

Inve

rteb

rate

s

Em

erg

ent

Inve

rteb

rate

s

Fis

h

Aq

uat

ic

Inve

rteb

rate

s

Em

erg

ent

Inve

rteb

rate

s

Fis

h


Metals

Cadmium 8.95 0.00 1.259 0.648 0.049 0.006 0.0012 0.0 0.0010 0% 100% 0% 1.0 0.0 0.131 0.0 0.131 0.00017 0.0 0.131 1.60 <1 5.80 <1

Copper 9468.0 0.0 309.7 92.6 10.970 0.006 0.0012 0.0 0.0010 0% 100% 0% 1.0 0.0 18.75 0.0 18.75 0.00307 0.0 18.75 22.30 <1 40.80 <1

Lead 1085.0 0.001 11.2 2.5 0.612 0.006 0.0012 0.0 0.0010 0% 100% 0% 1.0 0.0 0.512 0.0 0.512 0.00016 0.0 0.513 30.48 <1 100.47 <1

Mercury 41.29 0.000 0.455 1.001 0.470 0.006 0.0012 0.0 0.0010 0% 100% 0% 1.0 0.0 0.203 0.0 0.203 0.00003 0.0 0.203 1.00 <1 7.00 <1


Selenium 118.9 0.01 18.67 7.47 5.605 0.006 0.0012 0.0 0.0010 0% 100% 0% 1.0 0.0 1.512 0.0 1.512 0.00083 0.0 1.513 0.20 7.6 0.33 4.6

Zinc 908.7 0.01 130.8 24.7 225.6 0.006 0.0012 0.0 0.0010 0% 100% 0% 1.0 0.0 5.00 0.0 5.00 0.00119 0.0 5.01 116.30 <1 635.90 <1

Notes:












NA, Not Available;


Area Use

Factor

TRV (mg/kg bw-day)

NOAEL LOAEL

Analyte

Diet


Total Dose

Physical Dietary

Indiana Bat Dose (mg/kg bw-day)Exposure Parameters


(%)

BW

AUFCSIR

BW

AUFCIR

BW


total

××+

××+

×××

=∑ )(

TABLE E-7

RACCOON




PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Water Substrate

Sediment/Soil

(mg/kg)

Surface Water

(mg/L)

Aquatic

Invertebrates

(mg/kg, dw)

Emergent

Invertebrates

(mg/kg, dw)

All Fish

(mg/kg, dw)

Body

Weight

(kg)

Dietary

(kg dw/day)

Substrate

(kg dw/day)

Water

(L/day)

Aq

uat

ic

Inve

rteb

rate

s

Em

erg

ent

Inve

rteb

rate

s

Fis

h

Aq

uat

ic

Inve

rteb

rate

s

Em

erg

ent

Inve

rteb

rate

s

Fis

h


Metals

Cadmium 8.95 0.00 1.259 0.648 0.080 3.86 0.1166 0.0086 0.3335 50% 0% 50% 1.0 0.019 0.0 0.001 0.020 0.00009 0.020 0.040 1.60 <1 5.80 <1

Copper 9468.0 0.0 309.7 92.6 9.660 3.86 0.1166 0.0086 0.3335 50% 0% 50% 1.0 4.685 0.0 0.146 4.831 0.00161 21.197 26.030 22.30 1.2 40.80 <1

Lead 1085.0 0.001 11.2 2.5 0.501 3.86 0.1166 0.0086 0.3335 50% 0% 50% 1.0 0.169 0.0 0.008 0.177 0.00008 2.429 2.606 30.48 <1 100.47 <1

Mercury 41.29 0.000 0.455 1.001 0.453 3.86 0.1166 0.0086 0.3335 50% 0% 50% 1.0 0.007 0.0 0.007 0.014 0.00002 0.092 0.106 1.00 <1 7.00 <1


Selenium 118.9 0.01 18.67 7.47 6.478 3.86 0.1166 0.0086 0.3335 50% 0% 50% 1.0 0.282 0.0 0.098 0.380 0.00043 0.266 0.647 0.20 3.2 0.33 2.0

Zinc 908.7 0.01 130.8 24.7 187.5 3.86 0.1166 0.0086 0.3335 50% 0% 50% 1.0 1.979 0.0 2.836 4.815 0.00062 2.034 6.850 116.30 <1 635.90 <1

Notes:












NA, Not Available;


Raccoon Dose (mg/kg bw-day)Exposure Parameters


(%)

Area Use

Factor

TRV (mg/kg bw-day)

NOAEL LOAEL

Analyte

Diet


Total Dose

Physical Dietary

BW

AUFCSIR

BW

AUFCIR

BW


total

××+

××+

×××

=∑ )(

TABLE E-8

MINK




PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Water Substrate

Sediment/Soil

(mg/kg)

Surface Water

(mg/L)

Aquatic

Invertebrates

(mg/kg, dw)

Emergent

Invertebrates

(mg/kg, dw)

All Fish

(mg/kg, dw)

Body

Weight

(kg)

Dietary

(kg dw/day)

Substrate

(kg dw/day)

Water

(L/day)

Aq

uat

ic

Inve

rteb

rate

s

Em

erg

ent

Inve

rteb

rate

s

Fis

h

Aq

uat

ic

Inve

rteb

rate

s

Em

erg

ent

Inve

rteb

rate

s

Fis

h


Metals

Cadmium 8.95 0.00 1.259 0.648 0.080 0.60 0.0256 0.0 0.0625 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.003 0.003 0.00010 0.0 0.004 1.60 <1 5.80 <1

Copper 9468.0 0.0 309.7 92.6 9.660 0.60 0.0256 0.0 0.0625 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.413 0.413 0.00194 0.0 0.415 22.30 <1 40.80 <1

Lead 1085.0 0.001 11.2 2.5 0.501 0.60 0.0256 0.0 0.0625 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.021 0.021 0.00010 0.0 0.022 30.48 <1 100.47 <1

Mercury 41.29 0.000 0.455 1.001 0.453 0.60 0.0256 0.0 0.0625 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.019 0.019 0.00002 0.0 0.019 1.00 <1 7.00 <1


Selenium 118.9 0.01 18.67 7.47 6.478 0.60 0.0256 0.0 0.0625 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.277 0.277 0.00052 0.0 0.277 0.20 1.4 0.33 <1

Zinc 908.7 0.01 130.8 24.7 187.5 0.60 0.0256 0.0 0.0625 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.0 8.013 8.013 0.00075 0.0 8.013 116.30 <1 635.90 <1












NA, Not Available;


Area Use

Factor

TRV (mg/kg bw-day)

NOAEL LOAEL

Analyte

Diet


Total Dose

Physical Dietary

Mink Dose (mg/kg bw-day)Exposure Parameters


(%)

BW

AUFCSIR

BW

AUFCIR

BW


total

××+

××+

×××

=∑ )(

TABLE E-9

GREAT BLUE HERON

ADJUSTED AREA USE EXPOSURE ESTIMATE - SWMU 1/22 WETLAND COMPLEX



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Water Substrate

Sediment/Soil

(mg/kg)

Surface Water

(mg/L)

Aquatic

Invertebrates

(mg/kg, dw)

Emergent

Invertebrates

(mg/kg, dw)

All Fish

(mg/kg, dw)

Body

Weight

(kg)

Dietary

(kg dw/day)

Substrate

(kg dw/day)

Water

(L/day)

Aq

uat

ic

Inve

rteb

rate

s

Em

erg

ent

Inve

rteb

rate

s

Fis

h

Aq

uat

ic

Inve

rteb

rate

s

Em

erg

ent

Inve

rteb

rate

s

Fis

h


Metals

Cadmium 8.95 0.00 1.259 0.648 0.080 2.20 0.1396 0.0 0.1001 0% 0% 100% 0.63 0.0 0.0 0.003 0.003 0.00003 0.0 0.003 1.10 <1 4.90 <1

Copper 9468.0 0.0 309.7 92.6 9.660 2.20 0.1396 0.0 0.1001 0% 0% 100% 0.63 0.0 0.0 0.384 0.384 0.00053 0.0 0.384 9.10 <1 16.50 <1

Lead 1085.0 0.001 11.2 2.5 0.501 2.20 0.1396 0.0 0.1001 0% 0% 100% 0.63 0.0 0.0 0.020 0.020 0.00003 0.0 0.020 3.80 <1 24.80 <1

Mercury 41.29 0.000 0.455 1.001 0.453 2.20 0.1396 0.0 0.1001 0% 0% 100% 0.63 0.0 0.0 0.018 0.018 0.00001 0.0 0.018 0.45 <1 0.91 <1


Selenium 118.9 0.01 18.67 7.47 6.478 2.20 0.1396 0.0 0.1001 0% 0% 100% 0.63 0.0 0.0 0.257 0.257 0.00014 0.0 0.257 0.40 <1 0.80 <1

Zinc 908.7 0.01 130.8 24.7 187.5 2.20 0.1396 0.0 0.1001 0% 0% 100% 0.63 0.0 0.0 7.45 7.45 0.00020 0.0 7.45 54.50 <1 93.90 <1












NA, Not Available;


Great Blue Heron Dose (mg/kg bw-day)Exposure Parameters


(%)

Area Use

Factor

TRV (mg/kg bw-day)

NOAEL LOAEL

Analyte

Diet


Total Dose

Physical Dietary

BW

AUFCSIR

BW

AUFCIR

BW


total

××+

××+

×××

=∑ )(

TABLE E-10

MALLARD




PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Water Substrate

Sediment/Soil

(mg/kg)

Surface Water

(mg/L)

Aquatic

Invertebrates

(mg/kg, dw)

Emergent

Invertebrates

(mg/kg, dw)

Forage Fish

(mg/kg, dw)

Body

Weight

(kg)

Dietary

(kg dw/day)

Substrate

(kg dw/day)

Water

(L/day)

Aq

uat

ic

Inve

rteb

rate

s

Em

erg

ent

Inve

rteb

rate

s

Fis

h

Aq

uat

ic

Inve

rteb

rate

s

Em

erg

ent

Inve

rteb

rate

s

Fis

h


Metals

Cadmium 8.95 0.00 1.259 0.648 0.049 1.04 0.0523 0.0007 0.0607 100% 0% 0% 0.05 0.003 0.0 0.0 0.003 0.000003 0.000 0.003 1.10 <1 4.90 <1

Copper 9468.0 0.0 309.7 92.6 10.970 1.04 0.0523 0.0007 0.0607 100% 0% 0% 0.05 0.73 0.0 0.0 0.73 0.000051 0.289 1.02 9.10 <1 16.50 <1

Lead 1085.0 0.001 11.2 2.5 0.612 1.04 0.0523 0.0007 0.0607 100% 0% 0% 0.05 0.026 0.0 0.0 0.026 0.000003 0.033 0.059 3.80 <1 24.80 <1

Mercury 41.29 0.000 0.455 1.001 0.470 1.04 0.0523 0.0007 0.0607 100% 0% 0% 0.05 0.001 0.0 0.0 0.001 0.000001 0.001 0.002 0.45 <1 0.91 <1


Selenium 118.9 0.01 18.67 7.47 5.605 1.04 0.0523 0.0007 0.0607 100% 0% 0% 0.05 0.044 0.0 0.0 0.044 0.000014 0.004 0.048 0.40 <1 0.80 <1

Zinc 908.7 0.01 130.8 24.7 225.6 1.04 0.0523 0.0007 0.0607 100% 0% 0% 0.05 0.307 0.0 0.0 0.307 0.000020 0.028 0.335 54.50 <1 93.90 <1












NA, Not Available;


Analyte

Diet


Total Dose

Physical Dietary

Mallard Dose (mg/kg bw-day)Exposure Parameters


(%)

Area Use

Factor

TRV (mg/kg bw-day)

NOAEL LOAEL

BW

AUFCSIR

BW

AUFCIR

BW


total

××+

××+

×××

=∑ )(

TABLE E-11

INDIANA BAT




PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Water Substrate

Sediment/Soil

(mg/kg)

Surface Water

(mg/L)

Aquatic

Invertebrates

(mg/kg, dw)

Emergent

Invertebrates

(mg/kg, dw)

Forage Fish

(mg/kg, dw)

Body

Weight

(kg)

Dietary

(kg dw/day)

Substrate

(kg dw/day)

Water

(L/day)

Aq

uat

ic

Inve

rteb

rate

s

Em

erg

ent

Inve

rteb

rate

s

Fis

h

Aq

uat

ic

Inve

rteb

rate

s

Em

erg

ent

Inve

rteb

rate

s

Fis

h


Metals

Cadmium 8.95 0.00 1.259 0.648 0.049 0.006 0.0012 0.0 0.0010 0% 100% 0% 0.08 0.0 0.011 0.0 0.011 0.000014 0.0 0.011 1.60 <1 5.80 <1

Copper 9468.0 0.0 309.7 92.6 10.970 0.006 0.0012 0.0 0.0010 0% 100% 0% 0.08 0.0 1.59 0.0 1.59 0.000260 0.0 1.59 22.30 <1 40.80 <1

Lead 1085.0 0.001 11.2 2.5 0.612 0.006 0.0012 0.0 0.0010 0% 100% 0% 0.08 0.0 0.043 0.0 0.043 0.000013 0.0 0.043 30.48 <1 100.47 <1

Mercury 41.29 0.000 0.455 1.001 0.470 0.006 0.0012 0.0 0.0010 0% 100% 0% 0.08 0.0 0.017 0.0 0.017 0.000003 0.0 0.017 1.00 <1 7.00 <1


Selenium 118.9 0.01 18.67 7.47 5.605 0.006 0.0012 0.0 0.0010 0% 100% 0% 0.08 0.0 0.128 0.0 0.128 0.000070 0.0 0.128 0.20 <1 0.33 <1

Zinc 908.7 0.01 130.8 24.7 225.6 0.006 0.0012 0.0 0.0010 0% 100% 0% 0.08 0.0 0.42 0.0 0.42 0.000101 0.0 0.42 116.30 <1 635.90 <1












NA, Not Available;


Indiana Bat Dose (mg/kg bw-day)Exposure Parameters


(%)

Area Use

Factor

TRV (mg/kg bw-day)

NOAEL LOAEL

Analyte

Diet


Total Dose

Physical Dietary

BW

AUFCSIR

BW

AUFCIR

BW


total

××+

××+

×××

=∑ )(

TABLE E-12

RACCOON




PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Water Substrate

Sediment/Soil

(mg/kg)

Surface Water

(mg/L)

Aquatic

Invertebrates

(mg/kg, dw)

Emergent

Invertebrates

(mg/kg, dw)

All Fish

(mg/kg, dw)

Body

Weight

(kg)

Dietary

(kg dw/day)

Substrate

(kg dw/day)

Water

(L/day)

Aq

uat

ic

Inve

rteb

rate

s

Em

erg

ent

Inve

rteb

rate

s

Fis

h

Aq

uat

ic

Inve

rteb

rate

s

Em

erg

ent

Inve

rteb

rate

s

Fis

h


Metals

Cadmium 8.95 0.00 1.259 0.648 0.080 3.86 0.1166 0.0086 0.3335 50% 0% 50% 0.09 0.002 0.0 0.000 0.002 0.000008 0.002 0.004 1.60 <1 5.80 <1

Copper 9468.0 0.0 309.7 92.6 9.660 3.86 0.1166 0.0086 0.3335 50% 0% 50% 0.09 0.420 0.0 0.013 0.433 0.000144 1.900 2.334 22.30 <1 40.80 <1

Lead 1085.0 0.001 11.2 2.5 0.501 3.86 0.1166 0.0086 0.3335 50% 0% 50% 0.09 0.015 0.0 0.001 0.016 0.000007 0.218 0.234 30.48 <1 100.47 <1

Mercury 41.29 0.000 0.455 1.001 0.453 3.86 0.1166 0.0086 0.3335 50% 0% 50% 0.09 0.001 0.0 0.001 0.001 0.000002 0.008 0.010 1.00 <1 7.00 <1


Selenium 118.9 0.01 18.67 7.47 6.478 3.86 0.1166 0.0086 0.3335 50% 0% 50% 0.09 0.025 0.0 0.009 0.034 0.000039 0.024 0.058 0.20 <1 0.33 <1

Zinc 908.7 0.01 130.8 24.7 187.5 3.86 0.1166 0.0086 0.3335 50% 0% 50% 0.09 0.177 0.0 0.254 0.432 0.000056 0.182 0.614 116.30 <1 635.90 <1












NA, Not Available;


Analyte

Diet


Total Dose

Physical Dietary

Raccoon Dose (mg/kg bw-day)Exposure Parameters


(%)

Area Use

Factor

TRV (mg/kg bw-day)

NOAEL LOAEL

BW

AUFCSIR

BW

AUFCIR

BW


total

××+

××+

×××

=∑ )(

TABLE E-13

SUMMARY OF TERRESTRIAL EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS - NORTHERN PLANT GRIDS



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Bioaccumulation

Factor (BAF)

Estimated

ConcentrationBAF Reference

Estimated


Estimated


Metals

Antimony 0.42 Regressiona 0.018 USEPA (2007) 0.293 Measured UCL95

b 0.200 Measured UCL95c

Arsenic 8.93 Regressiona 0.466 Efroymson et al. (2001) 8.53 Measured UCL95


Barium 257.70 1.56E-01 40.2 USEPA (2007) 39.2 Measured UCL95b 31.6 Measured UCL95

c

Cadmium 0.46 Regressiona 0.405 Efroymson et al. (2001) 33.2 Measured UCL95


Chromium 21.29 4.10E-02 0.873 USEPA (2005b) 5.55 Measured UCL95b 26.5 Measured UCL95

c

Cobalt 12.81 7.50E-03 0.096 USEPA (2005b) 6.41 Measured UCL95b 1.41 Measured UCL95

c

Copper 81.79 Regressiona 10.89 Efroymson et al. (2001) 25.1 Measured UCL95


Lead 272.70 Regressiona 6.11 Efroymson et al. (2001) 198.8 Measured UCL95


Mercury 0.45 Regressiona 0.240 Efroymson et al. (2001) 3.08 Measured UCL95


Selenium 133.60 Regressiona 110.4 Bechtel-Jacobs 1998 150.6 Measured UCL95


Silver 0.10 4.00E-01 0.040 Baes et al. (1984) 0.839 Measured UCL95b 0.300 Measured UCL95

c

Zinc 81.51 Regressiona 57.1 Efroymson et al. (2001) 455.4 Measured UCL95


Notes:

a, Plant tissue concentrations (mg/kg dry weight) calculated based on regression models, where ln([tissue]) = B0 + B1(ln[soil]). Slopes (B1) and intercepts (B0) are as follows:

Metal BO B1 Data Source for Model

Antimony -3.233 0.938 USEPA (2007)

Arsenic -1.99 0.56 Efroymson et al. (2001)

Cadmium -0.48 0.55 Efroymson et al. (2001)

Copper 0.67 0.39 Efroymson et al. (2001)

Lead -1.33 0.56 Efroymson et al. (2001)

Mercury -1 0.54 Efroymson et al. (2001)

Selenium -0.68 1.1 Efroymson et al. (2001)

Zinc 1.58 0.56 Efroymson et al. (2001)

b, 95 percent upper confidence limit of the mean concentration (UCL95) of non-depurated earthworm tissues analyzed from grids N1, N2, and N3 of the Active Plant Area

c, 95 percent upper confidence limit of the mean concentration (UCL95) of non-depurated small mammal tissues analyzed from grids N1, N2, and N3 of the Active Plant Area

Soil

Invertebrates

Soil Exposure Point

Concentration (mg/kg, dry

weight)

AnalytePlants

Exposure Point Concentrations for Dietary Items of Terrestrial Receptors (mg/kg, dry weight)

Small Mammals

DRAFT

TABLE E-14

SHORT-TAILED SHREW

MAXIMUM AREA USE EXPOSURE ESTIMATE - NORTHERN PLANT GRIDS



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Substrate

Sediment/Soil

(mg/kg)

Plant Material

(mg/kg, dw)

Terrestrial

Invertebrates

(mg/kg, dw)

Small Mammal

(mg/kg, dw)

Body

Weight

(kg)

Dietary

(kg dw/day)

Substrate

(kg dw/day)

Plant Material

Terrestrial

Inve

rteb

rates

Small M

ammals

Plant Material

Inve

rteb

rates

Small M

ammals

Dosediet Dosesubstrate TRVNOAEL HQNOAEL TRVLOAEL HQLOAEL

Metals

Antimony 0.423 0.018 0.293 0.200 0.015 0.0020 0.00006 0% 100% 0% 1.0 0.0 0.039 0.0 0.039 0.002 0.041 13.30 <1 NA --

Arsenic 8.926 0.466 8.525 1.741 0.015 0.0020 0.00006 0% 100% 0% 1.0 0.0 1.142 0.0 1.142 0.036 1.178 3.90 <1 7.8 <1

Barium 257.7 40.20 39.18 31.56 0.015 0.0020 0.00006 0% 100% 0% 1.0 0.0 5.251 0.0 5.251 1.036 6.287 51.80 <1 82.7 <1

Cadmium 0.462 0.405 33.19 0.497 0.015 0.0020 0.00006 0% 100% 0% 1.0 0.0 4.448 0.0 4.448 0.002 4.450 1.60 2.8 5.8 <1

Chromium 21.29 0.873 5.554 26.53 0.015 0.0020 0.00006 0% 100% 0% 1.0 0.0 0.744 0.0 0.744 0.086 0.830 2.40 <1 58.2 <1

Cobalt 12.81 0.096 6.407 1.413 0.015 0.0020 0.00006 0% 100% 0% 1.0 0.0 0.859 0.0 0.859 0.052 0.910 5.00 <1 20.0 <1

Copper 81.79 10.89 25.08 18.52 0.015 0.0020 0.00006 0% 100% 0% 1.0 0.0 3.361 0.0 3.361 0.329 3.690 22.30 <1 40.8 <1

Lead 272.7 6.115 198.8 14.49 0.015 0.0020 0.00006 0% 100% 0% 1.0 0.0 26.642 0.0 26.64 1.096 27.74 30.48 <1 100.5 <1

Mercury 0.453 0.240 3.082 0.120 0.015 0.0020 0.00006 0% 100% 0% 1.0 0.0 0.413 0.0 0.413 0.002 0.415 1.00 <1 7.0 <1

Selenium 133.6 110.4 150.6 219.2 0.015 0.0020 0.00006 0% 100% 0% 1.0 0.0 20.182 0.0 20.18 0.537 20.72 0.20 103.6 0.33 62.8

Silver 0.100 0.040 0.839 0.300 0.015 0.0020 0.00006 0% 100% 0% 1.0 0.0 0.112 0.0 0.112 0.000 0.113 6.02 <1 119.0 <1

Zinc 81.51 57.08 455.4 1083.0 0.015 0.0020 0.00006 0% 100% 0% 1.0 0.0 61.029 0.0 61.03 0.328 61.36 116.30 <1 635.9 <1

Notes:


where: EDDtotal = Total dose of target obtained from the primary routes of exposure (mg metals/kg receptor body weight-day)




AUF = Area use factor



Csubstrate = Constituent concentration in substrate (mg metal/kg substrate, dry weight)

NA, Not Available;


Area Use

Factor

TRV (mg/kg bw-day)

NOAEL LOAEL

Analyte

Diet


Total Dose

Physical Dietary

Short-tailed Shrew Dose (mg/kg bw-day)Exposure Parameters


(%)

BW

AUFCSIR

BW

AUFDFCIREDD substrateincidentalitidiet

total

××+

×××

=∑ )(

DRAFT

TABLE E-15

RED FOX




PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Substrate

Sediment/Soil

(mg/kg)

Plant Material

(mg/kg, dw)

Terrestrial

Invertebrates

(mg/kg, dw)

Small Mammal

(mg/kg, dw)

Body

Weight

(kg)

Dietary

(kg dw/day)

Substrate

(kg dw/day)

Plant Material

Terrestrial

Inve

rteb

rates

Small M

ammals

Plant Material

Inve

rteb

rates

Small M

ammals


Metals

Antimony 0.423 0.018 0.293 0.200 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 100% 90% 1.0 0.0001 0.0 0.006 0.015 0.0004 0.016 13.30 <1 NA --

Arsenic 8.926 0.466 8.525 1.741 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 100% 90% 1.0 0.0015 0.3 0.051 0.329 0.0081 0.338 3.90 <1 7.8 <1

Barium 257.7 40.20 39.18 31.56 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 100% 90% 1.0 0.1306 1.3 0.923 2.326 0.2344 2.561 51.80 <1 82.7 <1

Cadmium 0.462 0.405 33.19 0.497 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 100% 90% 1.0 0.0013 1.1 0.015 1.094 0.0004 1.095 1.60 <1 5.8 <1

Chromium 21.29 0.873 5.554 26.53 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 100% 90% 1.0 0.0028 0.2 0.776 0.959 0.0194 0.978 2.40 <1 58.2 <1

Cobalt 12.81 0.096 6.407 1.413 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 100% 90% 1.0 0.0003 0.2 0.041 0.250 0.0117 0.261 5.00 <1 20.0 <1

Copper 81.79 10.89 25.08 18.52 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 100% 90% 1.0 0.0354 0.8 0.542 1.392 0.0744 1.466 22.30 <1 40.8 <1

Lead 272.7 6.115 198.8 14.49 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 100% 90% 1.0 0.0199 6.5 0.424 6.90 0.2481 7.15 30.48 <1 100.5 <1

Mercury 0.453 0.240 3.082 0.120 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 100% 90% 1.0 0.0008 0.1 0.004 0.104 0.0004 0.105 1.00 <1 7.0 <1

Selenium 133.6 110.4 150.6 219.2 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 100% 90% 1.0 0.3588 4.9 6.410 11.66 0.1215 11.78 0.20 58.9 0.33 35.7

Silver 0.100 0.040 0.839 0.300 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 100% 90% 1.0 0.0001 0.0 0.009 0.036 0.0001 0.036 6.02 <1 119.0 <1

Zinc 81.51 57.08 455.4 1083.0 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 100% 90% 1.0 0.1854 14.8 31.669 46.65 0.0742 46.73 116.30 <1 635.9 <1

Notes:










NA, Not Available;


Red Fox Dose (mg/kg bw-day)Exposure Parameters


(%)

Area Use

Factor

TRV (mg/kg bw-day)

NOAEL LOAEL

Analyte

Diet


Total Dose

Physical Dietary

BW

AUFCSIR

BW


total

××+

×××

=∑ )(

DRAFT

TABLE E-16

AMERICAN ROBIN




PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Substrate

Sediment/Soil

(mg/kg)

Plant Material

(mg/kg, dw)

Terrestrial

Invertebrates

(mg/kg, dw)

Small Mammal

(mg/kg, dw)

Body

Weight

(kg)

Dietary

(kg dw/day)

Substrate

(kg dw/day)

Plant Material

Terrestrial

Inve

rteb

rates

Small M

ammals

Plant Material

Inve

rteb

rates

Small M

ammals


Metals

Antimony 0.423 0.018 0.293 0.200 0.081 0.0119 0.00002 60% 40% 0% 1.0 0.0 0.017 0.0 0.019 0.0001 0.019 NA -- NA --

Arsenic 8.926 0.466 8.525 1.741 0.081 0.0119 0.00002 60% 40% 0% 1.0 0.0 0.504 0.0 0.545 0.0021 0.547 2.24 <1 4.5 <1

Barium 257.7 40.20 39.18 31.56 0.081 0.0119 0.00002 60% 40% 0% 1.0 3.6 2.316 0.0 5.882 0.0609 5.943 20.80 <1 41.7 <1

Cadmium 0.462 0.405 33.19 0.497 0.081 0.0119 0.00002 60% 40% 0% 1.0 0.0 1.962 0.0 1.998 0.0001 1.998 1.10 1.8 4.9 <1

Chromium 21.29 0.873 5.554 26.53 0.081 0.0119 0.00002 60% 40% 0% 1.0 0.1 0.328 0.0 0.406 0.0050 0.411 4.60 <1 14.5 <1

Cobalt 12.81 0.096 6.407 1.413 0.081 0.0119 0.00002 60% 40% 0% 1.0 0.0 0.379 0.0 0.387 0.0030 0.390 5.60 <1 16.9 <1

Copper 81.79 10.89 25.08 18.52 0.081 0.0119 0.00002 60% 40% 0% 1.0 1.0 1.483 0.0 2.448 0.0193 2.468 9.10 <1 16.5 <1

Lead 272.7 6.115 198.8 14.49 0.081 0.0119 0.00002 60% 40% 0% 1.0 0.5 11.754 0.0 12.30 0.0645 12.36 3.80 3.3 24.8 <1

Mercury 0.453 0.240 3.082 0.120 0.081 0.0119 0.00002 60% 40% 0% 1.0 0.0 0.182 0.0 0.203 0.0001 0.204 0.45 <1 0.9 <1

Selenium 133.6 110.4 150.6 219.2 0.081 0.0119 0.00002 60% 40% 0% 1.0 9.8 8.904 0.0 18.70 0.0316 18.73 0.40 46.8 0.80 23.4

Silver 0.100 0.040 0.839 0.300 0.081 0.0119 0.00002 60% 40% 0% 1.0 0.0 0.050 0.0 0.053 0.0000 0.053 2.02 <1 60.5 <1

Zinc 81.51 57.08 455.4 1083.0 0.081 0.0119 0.00002 60% 40% 0% 1.0 5.1 26.925 0.0 31.99 0.0193 32.01 54.50 <1 93.9 <1

Notes:










NA, Not Available;


Area Use

Factor

TRV (mg/kg bw-day)

NOAEL LOAEL

Analyte

Diet


Total Dose

Physical Dietary

American Robin Dose (mg/kg bw-day)Exposure Parameters


(%)

BW

AUFCSIR

BW


total

××+

×××

=∑ )(

DRAFT

TABLE E-17

RED-TAILED HAWK




PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Substrate

Sediment/Soil

(mg/kg)

Plant Material

(mg/kg, dw)

Terrestrial

Invertebrates

(mg/kg, dw)

Small Mammal

(mg/kg, dw)

Body

Weight

(kg)

Dietary

(kg dw/day)

Substrate

(kg dw/day)

Plant Material

Terrestrial

Inve

rteb

rates

Small M

ammals

Plant Material

Inve

rteb

rates

Small M

ammals


Metals

Antimony 0.423 0.018 0.293 0.200 1.224 0.0946 0.0 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0155 0.015 0.0 0.0155 NA -- NA --

Arsenic 8.926 0.466 8.525 1.741 1.224 0.0946 0.0 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.1346 0.135 0.0 0.1346 2.24 <1 4.5 <1

Barium 257.7 40.20 39.18 31.56 1.224 0.0946 0.0 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.4404 2.440 0.0 2.4404 20.80 <1 41.7 <1

Cadmium 0.462 0.405 33.19 0.497 1.224 0.0946 0.0 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0384 0.038 0.0 0.0384 1.10 <1 4.9 <1

Chromium 21.29 0.873 5.554 26.53 1.224 0.0946 0.0 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0515 2.051 0.0 2.0515 4.60 <1 14.5 <1

Cobalt 12.81 0.096 6.407 1.413 1.224 0.0946 0.0 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.1093 0.109 0.0 0.1093 5.60 <1 16.9 <1

Copper 81.79 10.89 25.08 18.52 1.224 0.0946 0.0 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.4321 1.432 0.0 1.4321 9.10 <1 16.5 <1

Lead 272.7 6.115 198.8 14.49 1.224 0.0946 0.0 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.1205 1.12 0.0 1.1205 3.80 <1 24.8 <1

Mercury 0.453 0.240 3.082 0.120 1.224 0.0946 0.0 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0093 0.009 0.0 0.0093 0.45 <1 0.9 <1

Selenium 133.6 110.4 150.6 219.2 1.224 0.0946 0.0 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.0 16.9499 16.95 0.0 16.9499 0.40 42.4 0.80 21.2

Silver 0.100 0.040 0.839 0.300 1.224 0.0946 0.0 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0232 0.023 0.0 0.0232 2.02 <1 60.5 <1

Zinc 81.51 57.08 455.4 1083.0 1.224 0.0946 0.0 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.0 83.7440 83.74 0.0 83.7440 54.50 1.5 93.9 <1

Notes:










NA, Not Available;


Red-Tailed Hawk Dose (mg/kg bw-day)Exposure Parameters


(%)

Area Use

Factor

TRV (mg/kg bw-day)

NOAEL LOAEL

Analyte

Diet


Total Dose

Physical Dietary

BW

AUFCSIR

BW


total

××+

×××

=∑ )(

DRAFT

TABLE E-18

SUMMARY OF TERRESTRIAL EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS - SOUTHERN PLANT GRIDS



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Bioaccumulation

Factor (BAF)

Estimated


Estimated


Estimated


Metals






c




c


c










c



Notes:



Antimony -3.233 0.938 USEPA (2007)








b, 95 percent upper confidence limit of the mean concentration (UCL95) of non-depurated earthworm tissues analyzed from grids S1, S2, and S3 of the Active Plant Area

c, 95 percent upper confidence limit of the mean concentration (UCL95) of non-depurated small mammal tissues analyzed from grids S1, S2, and S3 of the Active Plant Area

Soil

Invertebrates

Soil Exposure Point


weight)

AnalytePlants


Small Mammals

TABLE E-19

SHORT-TAILED SHREW

MAXIMUM AREA USE EXPOSURE ESTIMATE - SOUTHERN PLANT GRIDS



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Substrate

Sediment/Soil

(mg/kg)

Plant Material

(mg/kg, dw)

Terrestrial

Invertebrates

(mg/kg, dw)

Small Mammal

(mg/kg, dw)

Body

Weight

(kg)

Dietary

(kg dw/day)

Substrate

(kg dw/day)

Plant Material

Terrestrial

Inve

rteb

rates

Small M

ammals

Plant Material

Inve

rteb

rates

Small M

ammals


Metals

Antimony 0.324 0.014 0.358 0.060 0.015 0.0020 0.00006 0% 100% 0% 1.0 0.0 0.048 0.0 0.048 0.001 0.049 13.30 <1 NA --

Arsenic 7.027 0.407 7.413 0.184 0.015 0.0020 0.00006 0% 100% 0% 1.0 0.0 0.993 0.0 0.993 0.028 1.022 3.90 <1 7.8 <1

Barium 82.3 12.85 26.58 18.41 0.015 0.0020 0.00006 0% 100% 0% 1.0 0.0 3.562 0.0 3.562 0.331 3.893 51.80 <1 82.7 <1

Cadmium 0.229 0.275 12.41 0.107 0.015 0.0020 0.00006 0% 100% 0% 1.0 0.0 1.663 0.0 1.663 0.001 1.664 1.60 1.0 5.8 <1

Chromium 17.32 0.710 6.243 51.31 0.015 0.0020 0.00006 0% 100% 0% 1.0 0.0 0.837 0.0 0.837 0.070 0.906 2.40 <1 58.2 <1

Cobalt 12.98 0.097 6.034 0.421 0.015 0.0020 0.00006 0% 100% 0% 1.0 0.0 0.809 0.0 0.809 0.052 0.861 5.00 <1 20.0 <1

Copper 147.70 13.71 62.93 18.30 0.015 0.0020 0.00006 0% 100% 0% 1.0 0.0 8.433 0.0 8.433 0.594 9.027 22.30 <1 40.8 <1

Lead 230.5 5.565 249.6 2.70 0.015 0.0020 0.00006 0% 100% 0% 1.0 0.0 33.450 0.0 33.45 0.927 34.38 30.48 1.1 100.5 <1

Mercury 1.542 0.465 5.998 0.245 0.015 0.0020 0.00006 0% 100% 0% 1.0 0.0 0.804 0.0 0.804 0.006 0.810 1.00 <1 7.0 <1

Selenium 2.0 1.1 96.4 4.0 0.015 0.0020 0.00006 0% 100% 0% 1.0 0.0 12.913 0.0 12.91 0.008 12.92 0.20 64.6 0.33 39.2

Silver 0.060 0.024 0.956 0.098 0.015 0.0020 0.00006 0% 100% 0% 1.0 0.0 0.128 0.0 0.128 0.000 0.128 6.02 <1 119.0 <1

Zinc 87.93 59.55 455.9 165.6 0.015 0.0020 0.00006 0% 100% 0% 1.0 0.0 61.096 0.0 61.10 0.354 61.45 116.30 <1 635.9 <1

Notes:










NA, Not Available;


Analyte

Diet


Total Dose

Physical Dietary

Short-tailed Shrew Dose (mg/kg bw-day)Exposure Parameters


(%)

Area Use

Factor

TRV (mg/kg bw-day)

NOAEL LOAEL

BW

AUFCSIR

BW


total

××+

×××

=∑ )(

TABLE E-20

RED FOX




PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Substrate

Sediment/Soil

(mg/kg)

Plant Material

(mg/kg, dw)

Terrestrial

Invertebrates

(mg/kg, dw)

Small Mammal

(mg/kg, dw)

Body

Weight

(kg)

Dietary

(kg dw/day)

Substrate

(kg dw/day)

Plant Material

Terrestrial

Inve

rteb

rates

Small M

ammals

Plant Material

Inve

rteb

rates

Small M

ammals


Metals

Antimony 0.324 0.014 0.358 0.060 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 0% 90% 1.0 0.00004 0.0 0.002 0.002 0.0003 0.0021 13.30 <1 NA --

Arsenic 7.027 0.407 7.413 0.184 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 0% 90% 1.0 0.00132 0.0 0.005 0.007 0.0064 0.0131 3.90 <1 7.8 <1

Barium 82.3 12.85 26.58 18.41 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 0% 90% 1.0 0.04173 0.0 0.538 0.580 0.0749 0.6550 51.80 <1 82.7 <1

Cadmium 0.229 0.275 12.41 0.107 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 0% 90% 1.0 0.00089 0.0 0.003 0.004 0.0002 0.0042 1.60 <1 5.8 <1

Chromium 17.32 0.710 6.243 51.31 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 0% 90% 1.0 0.00231 0.0 1.500 1.503 0.0158 1.5185 2.40 <1 58.2 <1

Cobalt 12.98 0.097 6.034 0.421 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 0% 90% 1.0 0.00032 0.0 0.012 0.013 0.0118 0.0244 5.00 <1 20.0 <1

Copper 147.70 13.71 62.93 18.30 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 0% 90% 1.0 0.04455 0.0 0.535 0.580 0.1344 0.7140 22.30 <1 40.8 <1

Lead 230.5 5.565 249.6 2.70 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 0% 90% 1.0 0.01808 0.0 0.079 0.10 0.2097 0.3067 30.48 <1 100.5 <1

Mercury 1.542 0.465 5.998 0.245 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 0% 90% 1.0 0.00151 0.0 0.007 0.009 0.0014 0.0101 1.00 <1 7.0 <1

Selenium 2.0 1.1 96.4 4.0 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 0% 90% 1.0 0.00360 0.0 0.118 0.12 0.0019 0.1230 0.20 <1 0.33 <1

Silver 0.060 0.024 0.956 0.098 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 0% 90% 1.0 0.00008 0.0 0.003 0.003 0.0001 0.0030 6.02 <1 119.0 <1

Zinc 87.93 59.55 455.9 165.6 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 0% 90% 1.0 0.19349 0.0 4.842 5.04 0.0800 5.1159 116.30 <1 635.9 <1

Notes:










NA, Not Available;




(%)

Area Use

Factor

TRV (mg/kg bw-day)

NOAEL LOAEL

Analyte

Diet


Total Dose

Physical Dietary

BW

AUFCSIR

BW


total

××+

×××

=∑ )(

TABLE E-21

AMERICAN ROBIN




PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Substrate

Sediment/Soil

(mg/kg)

Plant Material

(mg/kg, dw)

Terrestrial

Invertebrates

(mg/kg, dw)

Small Mammal

(mg/kg, dw)

Body

Weight

(kg)

Dietary

(kg dw/day)

Substrate

(kg dw/day)

Plant Material

Terrestrial

Inve

rteb

rates

Small M

ammals

Plant Material

Inve

rteb

rates

Small M

ammals


Metals

Antimony 0.324 0.014 0.358 0.060 0.081 0.0119 0.00002 60% 40% 0% 1.0 0.001 0.021 0.0 0.022 0.0001 0.022 NA -- NA --

Arsenic 7.027 0.407 7.413 0.184 0.081 0.0119 0.00002 60% 40% 0% 1.0 0.036 0.438 0.0 0.474 0.0017 0.476 2.24 <1 4.5 <1

Barium 82.3 12.85 26.58 18.41 0.081 0.0119 0.00002 60% 40% 0% 1.0 1.139 1.572 0.0 2.711 0.0195 2.730 20.80 <1 41.7 <1

Cadmium 0.229 0.275 12.41 0.107 0.081 0.0119 0.00002 60% 40% 0% 1.0 0.024 0.734 0.0 0.758 0.0001 0.758 1.10 <1 4.9 <1

Chromium 17.32 0.710 6.243 51.31 0.081 0.0119 0.00002 60% 40% 0% 1.0 0.063 0.369 0.0 0.432 0.0041 0.436 4.60 <1 14.5 <1

Cobalt 12.98 0.097 6.034 0.421 0.081 0.0119 0.00002 60% 40% 0% 1.0 0.009 0.357 0.0 0.365 0.0031 0.368 5.60 <1 16.9 <1

Copper 147.70 13.71 62.93 18.30 0.081 0.0119 0.00002 60% 40% 0% 1.0 1.216 3.721 0.0 4.937 0.0349 4.972 9.10 <1 16.5 <1

Lead 230.5 5.565 249.6 2.70 0.081 0.0119 0.00002 60% 40% 0% 1.0 0.494 14.757 0.0 15.25 0.0545 15.31 3.80 4.0 24.8 <1

Mercury 1.542 0.465 5.998 0.245 0.081 0.0119 0.00002 60% 40% 0% 1.0 0.041 0.355 0.0 0.396 0.0004 0.396 0.45 <1 0.9 <1

Selenium 2.0 1.1 96.4 4.0 0.081 0.0119 0.00002 60% 40% 0% 1.0 0.098 5.697 0.0 5.80 0.0005 5.80 0.40 14.5 0.80 7.2

Silver 0.060 0.024 0.956 0.098 0.081 0.0119 0.00002 60% 40% 0% 1.0 0.002 0.057 0.0 0.059 0.0000 0.059 2.02 <1 60.5 <1

Zinc 87.93 59.55 455.9 165.6 0.081 0.0119 0.00002 60% 40% 0% 1.0 5.282 26.955 0.0 32.24 0.0208 32.26 54.50 <1 93.9 <1

Notes:










NA, Not Available;


Analyte

Diet


Total Dose

Physical Dietary

American Robin Dose (mg/kg bw-day)Exposure Parameters


(%)

Area Use

Factor

TRV (mg/kg bw-day)

NOAEL LOAEL

BW

AUFCSIR

BW


total

××+

×××

=∑ )(

TABLE E-22

RED-TAILED HAWK




PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Substrate

Sediment/Soil

(mg/kg)

Plant Material

(mg/kg, dw)

Terrestrial

Invertebrates

(mg/kg, dw)

Small Mammal

(mg/kg, dw)

Body

Weight

(kg)

Dietary

(kg dw/day)

Substrate

(kg dw/day)

Plant Material

Terrestrial

Inve

rteb

rates

Small M

ammals

Plant Material

Inve

rteb

rates

Small M

ammals


Metals

Antimony 0.32 0.014 0.358 0.060 1.224 0.0946 0.00000 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.000 0.0046 0.0046 0.0 0.0046 NA -- NA --

Arsenic 7.027 0.407 7.413 0.184 1.224 0.0946 0.00000 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.000 0.0142 0.0142 0.0 0.0142 2.24 <1 4.5 <1

Barium 82.3 12.85 26.58 18.41 1.224 0.0946 0.00000 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.000 1.4236 1.4236 0.0 1.4236 20.80 <1 41.7 <1

Cadmium 0.229 0.275 12.41 0.107 1.224 0.0946 0.00000 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.000 0.0083 0.0083 0.0 0.0083 1.10 <1 4.9 <1

Chromium 17.32 0.710 6.243 51.31 1.224 0.0946 0.00000 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.000 3.9676 3.9676 0.0 3.9676 4.60 <1 14.5 <1

Cobalt 12.98 0.097 6.034 0.421 1.224 0.0946 0.00000 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.000 0.0326 0.0326 0.0 0.0326 5.60 <1 16.9 <1

Copper 147.70 13.71 62.93 18.30 1.224 0.0946 0.00000 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.000 1.4151 1.4151 0.0 1.4151 9.10 <1 16.5 <1

Lead 230.5 5.565 249.6 2.70 1.224 0.0946 0.00000 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.000 0.2087 0.2087 0.0 0.2087 3.80 <1 24.8 <1

Mercury 1.542 0.465 5.998 0.245 1.224 0.0946 0.00000 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.000 0.0189 0.0189 0.0 0.0189 0.45 <1 0.9 <1

Selenium 2.0 1.1 96.4 4.0 1.224 0.0946 0.00000 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.000 0.3109 0.3109 0.0 0.3109 0.40 <1 0.80 <1

Silver 0.060 0.024 0.956 0.098 1.224 0.0946 0.00000 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.000 0.0076 0.0076 0.0 0.0076 2.02 <1 60.5 <1

Zinc 87.93 59.55 455.9 165.6 1.224 0.0946 0.00000 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.000 12.8052 12.8052 0.0 12.8052 54.50 <1 93.9 <1

Notes:










NA, Not Available;




(%)

Area Use

Factor

TRV (mg/kg bw-day)

NOAEL LOAEL

Analyte

Diet


Total Dose

Physical Dietary

BW

AUFCSIR

BW


total

××+

×××

=∑ )(

TABLE E-23

SUMMARY OF TERRESTRIAL EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS - NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN PLANT GRIDS



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Bioaccumulation

Factor (BAF)

Estimated


Estimated


Estimated


Metals






c




c


c










c



Notes:



Antimony -3.233 0.938 USEPA (2007)








b, 95 percent upper confidence limit of the mean concentration (UCL95) of non-depurated earthworm tissues analyzed from grids N1, N2, N3, S1, S2, and S3 of the Active Plant Area

c, 95 percent upper confidence limit of the mean concentration (UCL95) of non-depurated small mammal tissues analyzed from grids N1, N2, N3, S1, S2, and S3 of the Active Plant Area

Soil

Invertebrates

Soil Exposure Point


weight)

AnalytePlants


Small Mammals

TABLE E-24

RED FOX

MAXIMUM AREA USE EXPOSURE ESTIMATE - NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN PLANT GRIDS



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Substrate

Sediment/Soil

(mg/kg)

Plant Material

(mg/kg, dw)

Terrestrial

Invertebrates

(mg/kg, dw)

Small Mammal

(mg/kg, dw)

Body

Weight

(kg)

Dietary

(kg dw/day)

Substrate

(kg dw/day)

Plant Material

Terrestrial

Inve

rteb

rates

Small M

ammals

Plant Material

Inve

rteb

rates

Small M

ammals


Metals

Antimony 0.358 0.015 0.289 0.094 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 0% 90% 1.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0027 0.0028 0.0003 0.0031 13.30 <1 NA --

Arsenic 7.768 0.431 7.517 1.206 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 0% 90% 1.0 0.0014 0.0 0.0353 0.0367 0.0071 0.0437 3.90 <1 7.8 <1

Barium 125.9 19.64 26.11 24.58 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 0% 90% 1.0 0.0638 0.0 0.7188 0.7826 0.1145 0.8971 51.80 <1 82.7 <1

Cadmium 0.411 0.379 19.04 0.363 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 0% 90% 1.0 0.0012 0.0 0.0106 0.0118 0.0004 0.0122 1.60 <1 5.8 <1

Chromium 19.17 0.786 7.320 31.85 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 0% 90% 1.0 0.0026 0.0 0.9314 0.9339 0.0174 0.9513 2.40 <1 58.2 <1

Cobalt 12.44 0.093 5.829 1.062 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 0% 90% 1.0 0.0003 0.0 0.0311 0.0314 0.0113 0.0427 5.00 <1 20.0 <1

Copper 122.10 12.73 38.11 17.39 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 0% 90% 1.0 0.0414 0.0 0.5085 0.5499 0.1111 0.6610 22.30 <1 40.8 <1

Lead 200.6 5.149 129.8 9.03 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 0% 90% 1.0 0.0167 0.0 0.2641 0.2808 0.1825 0.4633 30.48 <1 100.5 <1

Mercury 0.872 0.342 4.648 0.117 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 0% 90% 1.0 0.0011 0.0 0.0034 0.0045 0.0008 0.0053 1.00 <1 10.0 <1

Selenium 35.0 25.3 120.1 82.9 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 0% 90% 1.0 0.0822 0.0 2.4230 2.5052 0.0318 2.5370 0.20 12.7 0.33 7.7

Silver 0.078 0.031 0.864 0.300 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 0% 90% 1.0 0.0001 0.0 0.0088 0.0089 0.0001 0.0089 6.02 <1 119.0 <1

Zinc 80.98 56.87 428.2 797.4 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 0% 90% 1.0 0.1848 0.0 23.3175 23.5023 0.0737 23.5759 116.30 <1 635.9 <1

Notes:










NA, Not Available;


Analyte

Diet


Total Dose

Physical Dietary



(%)

Area Use

Factor

TRV (mg/kg bw-day)

NOAEL LOAEL

BW

AUFCSIR

BW


total

××+

×××

=∑ )(

TABLE E-25

RED-TAILED HAWK

MAXIMUM AREA USE EXPOSURE ESTIMATE - NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN PLANT GRIDS



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Substrate

Sediment/Soil

(mg/kg)

Plant Material

(mg/kg, dw)

Terrestrial

Invertebrates

(mg/kg, dw)

Small Mammal

(mg/kg, dw)

Body

Weight

(kg)

Dietary

(kg dw/day)

Substrate

(kg dw/day)

Plant Material

Terrestrial

Inve

rteb

rates

Small M

ammals

Plant Material

Inve

rteb

rates

Small M

ammals


Metals

Antimony 0.36 0.015 0.289 0.094 1.224 0.0946 0.00000 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0073 0.0073 0.0 0.0073 NA -- NA --

Arsenic 7.768 0.431 7.517 1.206 1.224 0.0946 0.00000 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0933 0.0933 0.0 0.0933 2.24 <1 4.5 <1

Barium 125.9 19.64 26.11 24.58 1.224 0.0946 0.00000 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.9007 1.9007 0.0 1.9007 20.80 <1 41.7 <1

Cadmium 0.411 0.379 19.04 0.363 1.224 0.0946 0.00000 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0281 0.0281 0.0 0.0281 1.10 <1 4.9 <1

Chromium 19.17 0.786 7.320 31.85 1.224 0.0946 0.00000 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.4628 2.4628 0.0 2.4628 4.60 <1 14.5 <1

Cobalt 12.44 0.093 5.829 1.062 1.224 0.0946 0.00000 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0821 0.0821 0.0 0.0821 5.60 <1 16.9 <1

Copper 122.10 12.73 38.11 17.39 1.224 0.0946 0.00000 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.3447 1.3447 0.0 1.3447 9.10 <1 16.5 <1

Lead 200.6 5.149 129.8 9.03 1.224 0.0946 0.00000 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.6984 0.6984 0.0 0.6984 4.10 <1 27.7 <1

Mercury 0.872 0.342 4.648 0.117 1.224 0.0946 0.00000 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0090 0.0090 0.0 0.0090 0.45 <1 0.9 <1

Selenium 35.0 25.3 120.1 82.9 1.224 0.0946 0.00000 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.0 6.4072 6.4072 0.0 6.4072 0.40 16.0 0.80 8.0

Silver 0.078 0.031 0.864 0.300 1.224 0.0946 0.00000 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0232 0.0232 0.0 0.0232 2.02 <1 60.5 <1

Zinc 80.98 56.87 428.2 797.4 1.224 0.0946 0.00000 0% 0% 100% 1.0 0.0 0.0 61.6597 61.6597 0.0 61.6597 54.50 1.1 93.9 <1

Notes:










NA, Not Available;


Analyte

Diet


Total Dose

Physical Dietary



(%)

Area Use

Factor

TRV (mg/kg bw-day)

NOAEL LOAEL

BW

AUFCSIR

BW


total

××+

×××

=∑ )(

TABLE E-26

RED FOX

ADJUSTED AREA USE EXPOSURE ESTIMATE - NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN PLANT GRIDS



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Substrate

Sediment/Soil

(mg/kg)

Plant Material

(mg/kg, dw)

Terrestrial

Invertebrates

(mg/kg, dw)

Small Mammal

(mg/kg, dw)

Body

Weight

(kg)

Dietary

(kg dw/day)

Substrate

(kg dw/day)

Plant Material

Terrestrial

Inve

rteb

rates

Small M

ammals

Plant Material

Inve

rteb

rates

Small M

ammals


Metals

Antimony 0.358 0.015 0.289 0.094 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 0% 90% 0.58 0.0000 0.0 0.0016 0.0016 0.0002 0.0018 13.30 <1 NA --

Arsenic 7.768 0.431 7.517 1.206 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 0% 90% 0.58 0.0008 0.0 0.0204 0.0212 0.0041 0.0253 3.90 <1 7.8 <1

Barium 125.9 19.64 26.11 24.58 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 0% 90% 0.58 0.0370 0.0 0.4164 0.4534 0.0664 0.5197 51.80 <1 82.7 <1

Cadmium 0.411 0.379 19.04 0.363 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 0% 90% 0.58 0.0007 0.0 0.0061 0.0069 0.0002 0.0071 1.60 <1 5.8 <1

Chromium 19.17 0.786 7.320 31.85 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 0% 90% 0.58 0.0015 0.0 0.5395 0.5410 0.0101 0.5511 2.40 <1 58.2 <1

Cobalt 12.44 0.093 5.829 1.062 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 0% 90% 0.58 0.0002 0.0 0.0180 0.0182 0.0066 0.0247 5.00 <1 20.0 <1

Copper 122.10 12.73 38.11 17.39 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 0% 90% 0.58 0.0240 0.0 0.2946 0.3185 0.0643 0.3829 22.30 <1 40.8 <1

Lead 200.6 5.149 129.8 9.03 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 0% 90% 0.58 0.0097 0.0 0.1530 0.1627 0.1057 0.2684 30.48 <1 100.5 <1

Mercury 0.872 0.342 4.648 0.117 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 0% 90% 0.58 0.0006 0.0 0.0020 0.0026 0.0005 0.0031 1.00 <1 10.0 <1

Selenium 35.0 25.3 120.1 82.9 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 0% 90% 0.58 0.0476 0.0 1.4037 1.4513 0.0184 1.4697 0.20 7.3 0.33 4.5

Silver 0.078 0.031 0.864 0.300 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 0% 90% 0.58 0.0001 0.0 0.0051 0.0051 0.0000 0.0052 6.02 <1 119.0 <1

Zinc 80.98 56.87 428.2 797.4 4.500 0.1462 0.00409 10% 0% 90% 0.58 0.1070 0.0 13.5081 13.6151 0.0427 13.6578 116.30 <1 635.9 <1

Notes:










NA, Not Available;


Area Use

Factor

TRV (mg/kg bw-day)

NOAEL LOAEL

Analyte

Diet


Total Dose

Physical Dietary



(%)

BW

AUFCSIR

BW


total

××+

×××

=∑ )(

TABLE E-27

RED-TAILED HAWK

ADJUSTED AREA USE EXPOSURE ESTIMATE - NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN PLANT GRIDS



PORT EWEN, NEW YORK

Substrate

Sediment/Soil

(mg/kg)

Plant Material

(mg/kg, dw)

Terrestrial

Invertebrates

(mg/kg, dw)

Small Mammal

(mg/kg, dw)

Body

Weight

(kg)

Dietary

(kg dw/day)

Substrate

(kg dw/day)

Plant Material

Terrestrial

Inve

rteb

rates

Small M

ammals

Plant Material

Inve

rteb

rates

Small M

ammals


Metals

Antimony 0.358 0.015 0.289 0.094 1.224 0.0946 0.00000 0% 0% 100% 0.18 0.0 0.0 0.0013 0.0013 0.0000 0.0013 NA -- NA --

Arsenic 7.768 0.431 7.517 1.206 1.224 0.0946 0.00000 0% 0% 100% 0.18 0.0 0.0 0.0168 0.0168 0.0000 0.0168 2.24 <1 4.5 <1

Barium 125.9 19.64 26.11 24.58 1.224 0.0946 0.00000 0% 0% 100% 0.18 0.0 0.0 0.3426 0.3426 0.0000 0.3426 20.80 <1 41.7 <1

Cadmium 0.411 0.379 19.04 0.363 1.224 0.0946 0.00000 0% 0% 100% 0.18 0.0 0.0 0.0051 0.0051 0.0000 0.0051 1.10 <1 4.9 <1

Chromium 19.17 0.786 7.320 31.85 1.224 0.0946 0.00000 0% 0% 100% 0.18 0.0 0.0 0.4439 0.4439 0.0000 0.4439 4.60 <1 14.5 <1

Cobalt 12.44 0.093 5.829 1.062 1.224 0.0946 0.00000 0% 0% 100% 0.18 0.0 0.0 0.0148 0.0148 0.0000 0.0148 5.60 <1 16.9 <1

Copper 122.10 12.73 38.11 17.39 1.224 0.0946 0.00000 0% 0% 100% 0.18 0.0 0.0 0.2424 0.2424 0.0000 0.2424 9.10 <1 16.5 <1

Lead 200.6 5.149 129.8 9.03 1.224 0.0946 0.00000 0% 0% 100% 0.18 0.0 0.0 0.1259 0.1259 0.0000 0.1259 4.10 <1 27.7 <1

Mercury 0.872 0.342 4.648 0.117 1.224 0.0946 0.00000 0% 0% 100% 0.18 0.0 0.0 0.0016 0.0016 0.0000 0.0016 0.45 <1 0.9 <1

Selenium 35.0 25.3 120.1 82.9 1.224 0.0946 0.00000 0% 0% 100% 0.18 0.0 0.0 1.1550 1.1550 0.0000 1.1550 0.40 2.9 0.80 1.4

Silver 0.078 0.031 0.864 0.300 1.224 0.0946 0.00000 0% 0% 100% 0.18 0.0 0.0 0.0042 0.0042 0.0000 0.0042 2.02 <1 60.5 <1

Zinc 80.98 56.87 428.2 797.4 1.224 0.0946 0.00000 0% 0% 100% 0.18 0.0 0.0 11.1146 11.1146 0.0000 11.1146 54.50 <1 93.9 <1

Notes:










NA, Not Available;


Area Use

Factor

TRV (mg/kg bw-day)

NOAEL LOAEL

Analyte

Diet


Total Dose

Physical Dietary



(%)

BW

AUFCSIR

BW


total

××+

×××

=∑ )(

APPENDIX F

Ashland_C0F18512_SW_and_SQT_Sed.doc Page 1 of 6

DATA VALIDATION REPORT

Date: December 2, 2010 Data Reviewer: Emily Strake (URS Philadelphia Office) To: Gary Long (URS Philadelphia Office) Subject: Ashland Inc. – Port Ewen, NY

FWIA Step IIC Sampling – June 2010 Laboratory: Test America Laboratories, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA SDG: C0F180512 Surface Water and SQT Sediment Methodology Data were analyzed by the following methods:

Select Total Metals by USEPA SW-846 Method 6020 and 7470A/7471A. Total Hardness by SM18 2340B. Total Suspended Solids (TSS) by SM20 2540D. Total Organic Solids (TOC) by SM20 5310B. Target Compound List (TLC) Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) SW-846 8260B. TCL Sem-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) SW-846 8270C. TCL Pesticides SW-846 8081A. Percent Solids by SM20 2540G.

Acid Volatile Sulfide/Simultaneously Extracted Metals (AVS/SEM) by USEPA AVS and USEPA SEM.

Table 1 summarizes sample numbers, sampling dates, and requested analytical parameters:

Lab Sample ID Client Project Sample ID Sample Date Analyses Requested

C0F180512-001 PE-SW-07 6/16/2010 Metals, Hardness, TSS C0F180512-002 PE-SW-07-DIS 6/16/2010 Metals C0F180512-003 PE-SW-08 6/16/2010 Metals, Hardness, TSS C0F180512-004 PE-SW-08-DIS 6/16/2010 Metals C0F180512-005 PE-SW-09 6/16/2010 Metals, Hardness, TSS C0F180512-006 PE-SW-09-DIS 6/16/2010 Metals C0F180512-007 PE-SW-FBLK-02-DIS 6/16/2010 Metals



C0F180512-008 PE-SED-FBLK-02 6/15/2010 Metals

C0F180512-009 PE-SED-FBLK-03 6/16/2010 Metals, TOC, VOCs, SVOCs, Pesticides

C0F180512-010 TRIP BLANK --- VOCs C0F180512-011 PE-SQT-08 6/17/2010 AVS/SEM, % Solids C0F180512-012 PE-SQT-07 6/17/2010 AVS/SEM, % Solids C0F180512-013 PE-SQT-04 6/17/2010 AVS/SEM, % Solids

C0F180512-014 PE-SQT-SD-03 6/17/2010 VOCs, SVOCs, Sulfate, Sulfide

C0F180512-015 PE-SED-FBLK-04 6/17/2010 VOCs, SVOCs, Metals, TOC

Validation Overview Data have been validated using the specifics of the analytical methods listed above. Data qualifiers have been applied using the requirements as specified in USEPA Region 2 Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) #HW-2: Validation of Metals for the CLP based on SOW ILM05.3 (September 2006), SOP #HW-22: Validation of Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS, (October 2006), SOP #HW-24: Validation of Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS, (October 2006), SOP #HW-44: Validation of Pesticide Compounds by GC, (October 2006), and the QAPP. The following qualifiers may be applied as a result of data validation:

R – Result is considered unusable due to a major quality control anomaly. U – Result is non-detect to due to the presence of blank contamination. J – Result is estimated due to a minor quality control anomaly. UJ – Non-detect result (reporting limit) is estimated due to a minor quality control

anomaly. Validation qualifiers will supersede the laboratory-applied qualifiers. Qualification Summary Table 2 represents all validator applied data qualification:

Sample Sample

Date Analysis Analyte

Qualification Validator Flag

(final flag) PE-SED-FBLK-03 6/16/2010 VOCs Acetone J PE-SED-FBLK-03 6/16/2010 VOCs Bromomethane UJ PE-SED-FBLK-03 6/16/2010 SVOCs 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol UJ PE-SED-FBLK-03 6/16/2010 Pesticides delta-BHC R PE-SED-FBLK-03 6/16/2010 Pesticides Endrin aldehyde UJ


Sample Sample



(final flag) PE-SED-FBLK-04 6/17/2010 VOCs Acetone J PE-SED-FBLK-04 6/17/2010 VOCs Bromomethane UJ PE-SED-FBLK-04 6/17/2010 SVOCs 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol UJ

TRIP BLANK --- VOCs Bromomethane UJ

PE-SW-07-DIS 6/16/2010 Dissolved Metals Copper U (2.0)

PE-SW-07-DIS 6/16/2010 Dissolved Metals Zinc U (5.0)





PE-SED-FBLK-02 6/15/2010 Total Metals Calcium U (100) PE-SQT-08 6/17/2010 SEM Cadmium J PE-SQT-08 6/17/2010 SEM Nickel J PE-SQT-08 6/17/2010 SEM Lead J PE-SQT-08 6/17/2010 SEM Zinc J PE-SQT-07 6/17/2010 SEM Cadmium J PE-SQT-07 6/17/2010 SEM Nickel J PE-SQT-07 6/17/2010 SEM Lead J PE-SQT-07 6/17/2010 SEM Zinc J PE-SQT-04 6/17/2010 SEM Cadmium J PE-SQT-04 6/17/2010 SEM Nickel J PE-SQT-04 6/17/2010 SEM Lead J PE-SQT-04 6/17/2010 SEM Zinc J

PE-SED-FBLK-04 6/17/2010 Total Metals Calcium U (100) Major Deficiencies: Pesticides by SW-846 Method 8081A:

Sample PE-SED-FBLK-03 displayed dual column imprecision greater than the control limit (i.e., 25%) for delta-BHC at 1,083%. The associated positive detection was qualified as “R”, for rejected.

Minor Deficiencies: Metals by USEPA SW-846 Method 6020 and 7471A:

Field blank sample PE-SW-FBLK-02-DIS displayed positive detections for copper and zinc at 0.26 g/L and 0.99 g/L, respectively. Associated positive detections less than the RL were qualified as “U”.


The method blank sample analyzed in conjunction with preparation batch 0171016 displayed a positive detection for calcium at 31.5 g/L. Associated positive detections less than the RL were qualified as “U”.

Simultaneously Extracted Metals by USEPA SEM: The serial dilution relative percent difference (RPD) associated with sample batch 0176024 was greater than the control limit (i.e., 10%) for cadmium, lead, nickel, and zinc at 10.3%, 12.8%, 13.9%, and 13.7%, respectively. The associated sample results were positive detections and were qualified as “J”. VOCs by SW-846 Method 8260B: The continuing calibration analyzed on 6/22/2010 at 14:32 displayed percent deviations (%Ds) greater than the control limit with negative biases for bromomethane at 22.7% and acetone at 25.7%. The associated positive detections were qualified as “J” and non-detects were qualified “UJ”. The continuing calibration analyzed on 6/22/2010 at 17:07 displayed a %D greater than the control limit with a negative bias for bromomethane at 22.4%. The associated sample results were non-detect and were qualified as “UJ”. In addition, the %D for acetone was greater than the control limit with a positive bias at 22.0%. The associated positive detections were qualified as “J”. SVOCs by SW-846 Method 8270C: The continuing calibration analyzed on 6/24/2010 at 09:56 displayed a %D greater than the control limit (i.e., 20%) with a negative bias for 4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol at 22.0%. The associated sample results were non-detect and were qualified as “UJ”. Pesticides by SW-846 Method 8081A: The continuing calibration analyzed on 6/23/2010 at 01:26 displayed %Ds greater than the control limit (i.e., 20%) with negative biases on the front and rear chromatography columns for endrin aldehyde at 27.2% and 20.8%, respectively. The associated sample result was non-detect and was qualified as “UJ”.

Other Deficiencies: Metals by USEPA SW-846 Method 6020 and 7471A:

Field blank sample PE-SED-FBLK-03 displayed a positive detection for mercury at 0.040 g/L. There were no sediment samples collected on 6/16/2010 reported with this SDG; no qualification was required.


Field blank sample PE-SED-FBLK-02 displayed positive detections for calcium, copper, magnesium, lead, and zinc at 27.7g/L, 0.34g/L, 7.8g/L, 0.12g/L, and 2.3g/L, respectively.. There were no sediment samples collected on 6/15/2010 reported with this SDG; no qualification was required. Field blank sample PE-SED-FBLK-04 displayed positive detections for calcium, copper, magnesium, lead, and zinc at 22.3g/L, 0.64g/L, 3.6g/L, 0.10g/L, and 2.1g/L, respectively. There were no sediment samples collected on 6/17/2010 that were analyzed for total metals; no qualification was required. The method blank analyzed in conjunction with preparation batch 0173173 displayed a positive detection for mercury at 0.039g/L. The associated sample results were non-detect; no qualification was required. Simultaneously Extracted Metals by USEPA SEM: Spiked sample PE-SQT-08 displayed a matrix spike recovery less than the lower control limit (i.e., 75%) for lead at 58%. In addition, the matrix spike/spike duplicate relative percent difference was greater than the control limit (i.e., 20%) at 21%. The sample results were previously qualified on the basis of serial dilution anomalies; no further action was required. The method blank sample associated with preparation batch 0176024 displayed positive detections for copper, nickel, and zinc at 0.00088 umoles/gm, 0.0030 umoles/gm, and 0.023 umoles/gm. The associated sample results were greater than 10X the blank concentrations; no qualification was required. VOCs by SW-846 Method 8260B: The trip blank sample displayed a positive detection for carbon disulfide at 0.43 g/L. The associated investigative samples were not reported with this SDG; no qualification was required. Field blank samples PE-SED-FBLK-03 and PE-SED-FBLK-04 displayed positive detections for acetone at 4.8 g/L and 7.0 g/L, respectively; carbon disulfide at 0.32 g/L and 0.34 g/L, respectively; and toluene at 0.78 g/L and 0.46 g/L, respectively. The associated investigative samples were not reported with this SDG; no qualification was required.

SVOCs by SW-846 Method 8270C: The matrix spike duplicate associated with sample batch 0173110 displayed recoveries less than the lower control limits for pyrene and 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether at 34% and 37%, respectively. Data are not qualified on the basis of matrix spike duplicate recoveries alone.


Pesticides by SW-846 Method 8081A: The continuing calibrations analyzed on 6/23/2010 at 07:42 displayed a %D greater than the control limit with a negative bias for endrin aldehyde at 20.9%. Sample results were previously qualified on the basis of continuing calibration anomalies; no further action was required. Field blank sample PE-SED-FBLK-03 displayed a positive detection for delta-BHC at 0.22 g/L. The associated investigative samples were not reported with this SDG; no qualification was required.

Comments: Sulfide and sulfate results were not reported with this SDG.

On the basis of this evaluation, the laboratory appears to have followed the specified analytical method according to the provisions of the guidelines, with the exception of errors discussed above. If a given fraction is not mentioned above, that means that all specified criteria were met for that fraction.

Signed:

Emily Strake

Ashland_C0F190477_SWMU35_Soils.doc Page 1 of 4


Date: November 29, 2010 Data Reviewer: Emily Strake (URS Philadelphia Office) To: Gary Long (URS Philadelphia Office) Subject: Ashland Inc. – Port Ewen, NY

FWIA Step IIC Sampling – June 2010 Laboratory: Test America Laboratories, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA SDG: C0F190477 SWMU 35 Soils Methodology Data were analyzed by the following methods:

Select Total Metals by USEPA SW-846 Method 6020 and 7471A. Percent Moisture (%M) by SM20 2540G.



C0F190477-001 PE-35-SO-01 6/18/2010 Metals, %M C0F190477-002 PE-35-SO-02 6/18/2010 Metals, %M C0F190477-003 PE-35-SO-03 6/18/2010 Metals, %M C0F190477-004 PE-35-SO-03 DUP 6/18/2010 Metals, %M C0F190477-005 PE-35-SO-04 6/18/2010 Metals, %M C0F190477-006 PE-35-SO-05 6/18/2010 Metals, %M C0F190477-007 PE-SO-FBLK-01 6/18/2010 Metals, %M

Validation Overview Data have been validated using the specifics of the analytical methods listed above. Data qualifiers have been applied using the requirements as specified in USEPA Region 2 Standard Operating Procedure #HW-2: Validation of Metals for the CLP based on SOW ILM05.3 (September 2006), and the QAPP. The following qualifiers may be applied as a result of data validation:

R – Result is considered unusable due to a major quality control anomaly. U – Result is non-detect to due to the presence of blank contamination.


J – Result is estimated due to a minor quality control anomaly. UJ – Non-detect result (reporting limit) is estimated due to a minor quality control


Sample Sample



(final flag) PE-35-SO-01 6/18/2010 Metals Arsenic J PE-35-SO-01 6/18/2010 Metals Copper J PE-35-SO-01 6/18/2010 Metals Antimony J PE-35-SO-02 6/18/2010 Metals Arsenic J PE-35-SO-02 6/18/2010 Metals Copper J PE-35-SO-02 6/18/2010 Metals Antimony J PE-35-SO-03 6/18/2010 Metals Arsenic J PE-35-SO-03 6/18/2010 Metals Copper J PE-35-SO-03 6/18/2010 Metals Lead J PE-35-SO-03 6/18/2010 Metals Antimony J

PE-35-SO-03 DUP 6/18/2010 Metals Arsenic J PE-35-SO-03 DUP 6/18/2010 Metals Copper J PE-35-SO-03 DUP 6/18/2010 Metals Lead J PE-35-SO-03 DUP 6/18/2010 Metals Antimony J

PE-35-SO-04 6/18/2010 Metals Arsenic J PE-35-SO-04 6/18/2010 Metals Copper J PE-35-SO-04 6/18/2010 Metals Antimony J PE-35-SO-05 6/18/2010 Metals Arsenic J PE-35-SO-05 6/18/2010 Metals Copper J PE-35-SO-05 6/18/2010 Metals Antimony J

PE-SO-FBLK-01 6/18/2010 Metals Antimony U (2.0) Major Deficiencies: No major deficiencies were identified. Minor Deficiencies: Metals by USEPA SW-846 Method 6020 and 7471A:

The method blank analyzed in conjunction with preparation batch 0173368 displayed a positive detection greater than the MDL but less than the RL for antimony at 0.34 mg/kg. Associated positive detections less than the RL were qualified as “U”.


The method blank analyzed in conjunction with preparation batch 0173375 displayed positive detections greater than the MDL but less than the RL for antimony at 0.020 mg/kg and chromium at 0.016 mg/kg. Associated positive detections greater than the RL but less than 10X the blank concentration were qualified as “J”. Matrix spike/spike duplicate (MS/SD) sample PE-35-SO-02 displayed recoveries less than the lower control limit (i.e., 75%) for antimony at 36% and 38%, respectively; arsenic at 57% and 72%, respectively; and for copper at 63% and 68%, respectively. The associated sample results were positive detections and were qualified as “J”. Field duplicate and parent sample pair PE-35-SO-03 and PE-35-SO-03 DUP displayed a relative percent difference greater than the control limit (i.e., 35%) for lead at 37.3%. The associated positive detections were qualified as “J”.


The SD recovery for barium associated with spiked sample PE-35-SO-02 was greater than the upper control limit at 130%. The MS was within control; no qualification was required. The MS recovery for cobalt associated with spiked sample PE-35-SO-02 was less than the lower control limit at 70%. The SD was within control; no qualification was required. The field blank sample displayed positive detections for barium, cobalt, chromium, copper, lead, antimony, and zinc. The associated investigative sample results were greater than 10X the blank concentrations or non-detect; no qualification was required.

Comments: On the basis of this evaluation, the laboratory appears to have followed the

specified analytical method according to the provisions of the guidelines, with the exception of errors discussed above. If a given fraction is not mentioned above, that means that all specified criteria were met for that fraction.


Signed:

Emily Strake

Ashland_C0F300551_SMTIS.doc Page 1 of 5



FWIA Step IIC Sampling – June 2010 Laboratory: Test America Laboratories, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA SDG: C0F300551 Small Mammal Tissue Methodology Data were analyzed by the following methods:




C0F300551-001 PE-S1-SMTIS-INDV-01 6/22/2010 Metals, %M C0F300551-002 PE-S1-SMTIS-INDV-02 6/22/2010 Metals, %M C0F300551-003 PE-S1-SMTIS-INDV-03 6/23/2010 Metals, %M C0F300551-004 PE-S1-SMTIS-INDV-04 6/24/2010 Metals, %M C0F300551-005 PE-N3-SMTIS-INDV-01 6/23/2010 Metals, %M C0F300551-006 PE-N3-SMTIS-INDV-02 6/23/2010 Metals, %M C0F300551-007 PE-N3-SMTIS-INDV-03 6/24/2010 Metals, %M C0F300551-008 PE-N3-SMTIS-INDV-04 6/24/2010 Metals, %M C0F300551-009 PE-N3-SMTIS-INDV-05 6/24/2010 Metals, %M C0F300551-010 PE-N2-SMTIS-INDV-01 6/22/2010 Metals, %M C0F300551-011 PE-N2-SMTIS-INDV-02 6/22/2010 Metals, %M C0F300551-012 PE-N2-SMTIS-INDV-03 6/22/2010 Metals, %M C0F300551-013 PE-N2-SMTIS-INDV-04 6/23/2010 Metals, %M C0F300551-014 PE-N2-SMTIS-INDV-05 6/24/2010 Metals, %M C0F300551-015 PE-S2-SMTIS-INDV-01 6/24/2010 Metals, %M C0F300551-016 PE-S2-SMTIS-INDV-02 6/24/2010 Metals, %M C0F300551-017 PE-S3-SMTIS-INDV-01 6/24/2010 Metals, %M C0F300551-018 PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-01 6/22/2010 Metals, %M C0F300551-019 PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-02 6/22/2010 Metals, %M C0F300551-020 PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-03 6/22/2010 Metals, %M C0F300551-021 PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-04 6/22/2010 Metals, %M



C0F300551-022 PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-05 6/22/2010 Metals, %M C0F300551-025 PE-N3-SMTIS-INDV-01 DUP 6/23/2010 Metals, %M C0F300551-026 PE-S3-SMTIS-INDV-01 DUP 6/24/2010 Metals, %M C0F300551-027 Equipment Blank 8/12/2010 Metals, %M




Sample Sample



(final flag) PE-S1-SMTIS-INDV-01 6/22/2010 Metals Antimony U (0.18) PE-S1-SMTIS-INDV-01 6/22/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-S1-SMTIS-INDV-02 6/22/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-S1-SMTIS-INDV-03 6/23/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-S1-SMTIS-INDV-04 6/24/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-N3-SMTIS-INDV-01 6/23/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-N3-SMTIS-INDV-02 6/23/2010 Metals Antimony U (0.17) PE-N3-SMTIS-INDV-02 6/23/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-N3-SMTIS-INDV-03 6/24/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-N3-SMTIS-INDV-04 6/24/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-N3-SMTIS-INDV-05 6/24/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-N2-SMTIS-INDV-01 6/22/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-N2-SMTIS-INDV-02 6/22/2010 Metals Selenium J PE-N2-SMTIS-INDV-02 6/22/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-N2-SMTIS-INDV-03 6/22/2010 Metals Chromium J


Sample Sample



(final flag) PE-N2-SMTIS-INDV-03 6/22/2010 Metals Selenium J PE-N2-SMTIS-INDV-03 6/22/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-N2-SMTIS-INDV-04 6/23/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-N2-SMTIS-INDV-04 6/23/2010 Metals Selenium J PE-N2-SMTIS-INDV-04 6/23/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-N2-SMTIS-INDV-05 6/24/2010 Metals Selenium J PE-N2-SMTIS-INDV-05 6/24/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-S2-SMTIS-INDV-01 6/24/2010 Metals Selenium J PE-S2-SMTIS-INDV-01 6/24/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-S2-SMTIS-INDV-02 6/24/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-S2-SMTIS-INDV-02 6/24/2010 Metals Selenium J PE-S2-SMTIS-INDV-02 6/24/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-S3-SMTIS-INDV-01 6/24/2010 Metals Cadmium J PE-S3-SMTIS-INDV-01 6/24/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-S3-SMTIS-INDV-01 6/24/2010 Metals Selenium J PE-S3-SMTIS-INDV-01 6/24/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-01 6/22/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-01 6/22/2010 Metals Selenium J PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-01 6/22/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-02 6/22/2010 Metals Cadmium J PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-02 6/22/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-02 6/22/2010 Metals Selenium J PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-02 6/22/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-03 6/22/2010 Metals Cadmium J PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-03 6/22/2010 Metals Selenium J PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-03 6/22/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-04 6/22/2010 Metals Cadmium J PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-04 6/22/2010 Metals Selenium J PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-04 6/22/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-05 6/22/2010 Metals Cadmium J PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-05 6/22/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-05 6/22/2010 Metals Selenium J PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-05 6/22/2010 Metals Zinc J

PE-N3-SMTIS-INDV-01 DUP 6/23/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-N3-SMTIS-INDV-01 DUP 6/23/2010 Metals Selenium J PE-N3-SMTIS-INDV-01 DUP 6/23/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-S3-SMTIS-INDV-01 DUP 6/24/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-S3-SMTIS-INDV-01 DUP 6/24/2010 Metals Selenium J PE-S3-SMTIS-INDV-01 DUP 6/24/2010 Metals Zinc J

Equipment Blank 8/12/2010 Metals Selenium J Equipment Blank 8/12/2010 Metals Zinc J

Major Deficiencies: No major deficiencies were identified.



The method blank analyzed in conjunction with preparation batch 0238055 displayed positive detections greater than the MDL but less than the RL for antimony at 0.009 mg/kg, chromium at 0.027 mg/kg, copper at 0.0085 mg/kg, and silver at 0.0027 mg/kg. Associated positive detections less than the RL were qualified as “U” and detections greater than the RL but less than 10X the blank concentration were qualified as “J”. The method blank analyzed in conjunction with preparation batch 0238057 displayed a positive detection greater than the MDL but less than the RL for chromium at 0.024 mg/kg. Associated positive detections greater than the RL but less than 10X the blank concentration were qualified as “J”. The matrix spike/spike duplicate (MS/SD) relative percent difference (RPD) associated with spiked sample PE-S1-SMTIS-COMP-04 was greater than the control limit (i.e., 20%) for zinc at 22%. The associated sample results were positive detections and were qualified as “J”. The MS/SD RPD associated with spiked sample PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-05 was greater than the control limit for selenium and zinc at 26% and 22%, respectively. The associated sample results were positive detections and were qualified as “J”.

The serial dilution percent differences (%Ds) for cadmium and zinc associated with sample batch 0238057 were greater than the control limit (i.e., 10%) at 24.9% and 11.0%, respectively. The associated positive detections were qualified as “J”. Field duplicate and parent sample pair PE-N3-SMTIS-INDV-02 and PE-N3-SMTIS-INDV-02 DUP displayed a RPD greater than the control limit (i.e., 35%) for chromium at 38.3%. The associated positive detections were qualified as “J”. Field duplicate and parent sample pair PE-S3-SMTIS-INDV-01 and PE-S3-SMTIS-INDV-01 DUP displayed a RPD greater than the control limit for chromium at 40%. The associated positive detections were qualified as “J”. The equipment blank sample displayed positive detections for chromium, copper, selenium, and zinc at 0.38 mg/kg, 0.17 mg/kg, 0.094 mg/kg, and 0.65 mg/kg, respectively. Positive sample results less than 10X the blank concentration were qualified as “J”.


The MS recovery for chromium associated with spiked sample PE-S1-SMTIS-INDV-04 was less than the lower control limit at 73%. The SD was within


control; no qualification was required. The MS recovery for selenium associated with spiked sample PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-05 was less than the lower control limit at 63%. The SD was within control; no qualification was required.

The continuing calibration blank analyzed on 8/26/2010 at 09:21 displayed a negative detection for mercury at -0.1 g/L. The associated sample results were greater than 10X the blank concentration; no qualification was required.

Comments: Small mammal tissue samples were sent to Aquatec Biological Services, Inc. in

Willston, VT for homogenization and were returned to Test America on 8/20/2010 and 8/25/2010. Upon arrival at Test America, the sample coolers were determined to be at ambient temperature. On the basis of professional judgment, sample quality for metal analytes was not impacted by temperature.


Signed:

Emily Strake

Ashland_C0F300566r_EWTIS.doc Page 1 of 7



FWIA Step IIC Sampling – June 2010 Laboratory: Test America Laboratories, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA SDG: C0F300566r Earthworm Composite Tissue Methodology Data were analyzed by the following methods:




C0F300566-001 PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-01 6/25/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-002 PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/25/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-003 PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-03 6/25/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-004 PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-04 6/25/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-005 PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-006 PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-01 6/24/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-007 PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/24/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-008 PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/24/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-009 PE-N1-EWTIS-COMP-01 6/24/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-010 PE-N1-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/24/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-011 PE-N1-EWTIS-COMP-03 6/24/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-012 PE-N1-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-013 PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-03 6/25/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-014 PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-04 6/25/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-015 PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-016 PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-03 6/25/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-017 PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-04 6/25/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-018 PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-019 PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-01 6/24/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-020 PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/24/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-021 PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-03 6/24/2010 Metals, %M



C0F300566-022 PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-04 6/24/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-023 PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/24/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-024 PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-02 DUP 6/24/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-025 PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-05 DUP 6/25/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-026 PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/25/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-027 PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-01 6/25/2010 Metals, %M




Sample Sample



(final flag) PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-01 6/25/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-01 6/25/2010 Metals Lead J PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-01 6/25/2010 Metals Antimony U (0.20) PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-01 6/25/2010 Metals Mercury J PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/25/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/25/2010 Metals Lead J PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/25/2010 Metals Antimony U (0.20) PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/25/2010 Metals Mercury J PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-03 6/25/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-03 6/25/2010 Metals Lead J PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-03 6/25/2010 Metals Antimony U (0.20) PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-03 6/25/2010 Metals Mercury J PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-04 6/25/2010 Metals Chromium J


Sample Sample



(final flag) PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-04 6/25/2010 Metals Lead J PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-04 6/25/2010 Metals Antimony U (0.20) PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-04 6/25/2010 Metals Mercury J PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals Lead J PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals Antimony U (0.20) PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals Mercury J PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-01 6/24/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-01 6/24/2010 Metals Lead J PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-01 6/24/2010 Metals Mercury J PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/24/2010 Metals Arsenic J PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/24/2010 Metals Cobalt J PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/24/2010 Metals Chromium U (0.20) PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/24/2010 Metals Copper J PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/24/2010 Metals Lead J PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/24/2010 Metals Selenium J PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/24/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/24/2010 Metals Mercury J PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/24/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/24/2010 Metals Lead J PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/24/2010 Metals Antimony U (0.20) PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/24/2010 Metals Mercury J PE-N1-EWTIS-COMP-01 6/24/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-N1-EWTIS-COMP-01 6/24/2010 Metals Lead J PE-N1-EWTIS-COMP-01 6/24/2010 Metals Antimony U (0.20) PE-N1-EWTIS-COMP-01 6/24/2010 Metals Mercury J PE-N1-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/24/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-N1-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/24/2010 Metals Lead J PE-N1-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/24/2010 Metals Antimony U (0.20) PE-N1-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/24/2010 Metals Mercury J PE-N1-EWTIS-COMP-03 6/24/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-N1-EWTIS-COMP-03 6/24/2010 Metals Lead J PE-N1-EWTIS-COMP-03 6/24/2010 Metals Mercury J PE-N1-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-N1-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals Lead J PE-N1-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals Antimony U (0.20) PE-N1-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals Mercury J PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-03 6/25/2010 Metals Chromium U (0.20) PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-03 6/25/2010 Metals Lead J PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-03 6/25/2010 Metals Antimony U (0.20) PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-03 6/25/2010 Metals Mercury J PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-04 6/25/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-04 6/25/2010 Metals Lead J PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-04 6/25/2010 Metals Antimony U (0.20) PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-04 6/25/2010 Metals Mercury J PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals Chromium U (0.20)


Sample Sample



(final flag) PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals Lead J PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals Antimony U (0.20) PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals Mercury J PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-03 6/25/2010 Metals Chromium U (0.20) PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-03 6/25/2010 Metals Lead J PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-03 6/25/2010 Metals Antimony U (0.20) PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-03 6/25/2010 Metals Mercury J PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-04 6/25/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-04 6/25/2010 Metals Lead J PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-04 6/25/2010 Metals Antimony U (0.20) PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-04 6/25/2010 Metals Mercury J PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals Barium J PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals Cobalt J PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals Copper J PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals Lead J PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals Antimony U (0.20) PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals Selenium J PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals Mercury J PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-01 6/24/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-01 6/24/2010 Metals Lead J PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-01 6/24/2010 Metals Antimony U (0.20) PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-01 6/24/2010 Metals Mercury J PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/24/2010 Metals Chromium U (0.20) PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/24/2010 Metals Lead J PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/24/2010 Metals Antimony U (0.20) PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/24/2010 Metals Mercury J PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-03 6/24/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-03 6/24/2010 Metals Mercury R PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-04 6/24/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-04 6/24/2010 Metals Mercury R PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/24/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/24/2010 Metals Mercury R

PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-02 DUP 6/24/2010 Metals Arsenic J PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-02 DUP 6/24/2010 Metals Cobalt J PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-02 DUP 6/24/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-02 DUP 6/24/2010 Metals Selenium J PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-02 DUP 6/24/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-02 DUP 6/24/2010 Metals Mercury R PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-05 DUP 6/25/2010 Metals Barium J PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-05 DUP 6/25/2010 Metals Cobalt J PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-05 DUP 6/25/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-05 DUP 6/25/2010 Metals Copper J PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-05 DUP 6/25/2010 Metals Lead J PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-05 DUP 6/25/2010 Metals Selenium J PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-05 DUP 6/25/2010 Metals Mercury R


Sample Sample



(final flag) PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/25/2010 Metals Chromium U (0.20) PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/25/2010 Metals Mercury R PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-01 6/25/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-01 6/25/2010 Metals Mercury R

Major Deficiencies: Metals by USEPA SW-846 Method 6020 and 7471A:

Matrix spike/spike duplicate (MS/SD) sample PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-05 did not recover (i.e., 0%) for mercury. The associated sample results were qualified as “R”, for rejected.


The method blank analyzed in conjunction with preparation batch 191035 displayed positive detections greater than the MDL but less than the RL for antimony at 0.026 mg/kg, chromium at 0.058 mg/kg, copper at 0.046 mg/kg, lead at 0.0036 mg/kg, and zinc at 0.029 mg/kg. Associated positive detections less than the RL were qualified as “U” and detections greater than the RL but less than 10X the blank concentration were qualified as “J”. The method blank analyzed in conjunction with preparation batch 191036 displayed positive detections greater than the MDL but less than the RL for chromium at 0.019 mg/kg and selenium at 0.070 mg/kg. Associated positive detections less than the RL were qualified as “U” and detections greater than the RL but less than 10X the blank concentration were qualified as “J”. The MS/SD relative percent difference (RPD) associated with spiked sample PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-04 was greater than the control limit (i.e., 20%) for lead at 48%. The associated sample results were positive detections and were qualified as “J”. The MS/SD recoveries for mercury associated with spiked sample PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-04 were less than the lower control limit (i.e., 75%) for mercury at 49% and 27%, respectively. The associated sample results were positive detections and were qualified as “J”. The serial dilution percent differences (%Ds) for chromium associated with sample batches 0191035 and 0191036 were greater than the control limit (i.e., 10%) at 45.3% and 11.8%, respectively. The associated positive detections were qualified as “J”, unless previously qualified “U” for blank contamination.


Field duplicate and parent sample pair PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-02 and PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-02 DUP displayed RPDs greater than the control limit (i.e., 35%) for arsenic, cobalt, selenium, zinc, and mercury at 46.9%, 41.2%, 87.4%, 37.2%, and 60%, respectively. The associated positive detections were qualified as “J”. Field duplicate and parent sample pair PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-05 and PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-05 DUP displayed RPDs greater than the control limit for cobalt, copper, lead, and mercury at 40%, 154.5%, 52.5%, and 47.1%, respectively. The associated positive detections were qualified as “J”. In addition, the absolute difference for barium, chromium, and selenium was greater than the control limit (i.e., 2X the RL) at 3.89 mg/kg, 0.71 mg/kg, and 3.9 mg/kg, respectively. The associated sample results were positive detections and were qualified as “J”.


The SD recovery for lead associated with spiked sample PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-04 was less than the lower control limit at 8.2%. The MS was within control; no qualification was required. The MS recovery for zinc associated with spiked sample PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-04 was less than the lower control limit at 65%. The SD was within control; no qualification was required. The MS recovery for arsenic associated with spiked sample PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-05 was less than the lower control limit at 72%. The SD was within control; no qualification was required. The MS recovery for zinc associated with spiked sample PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-05 was greater than the upper control limit at 141%. The SD was within control; no qualification was required. The continuing calibration blank analyzed on 7/12/2010 at 09:18 displayed a negative detection for mercury at -0.1 g/L. The associated sample results were greater than 10X the blank concentration; no qualification was required.




Signed:

Emily Strake



Date: December 2, 2010 Data Reviewer: Emily Strake (URS Philadelphia Office) To: Gary Long (URS Philadelphia Office) Subject: Ashland Inc. – Port Ewen, NY

FWIA Step IIC Sampling – June 2010 Laboratory: Test America Laboratories, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA SDG: C0F180512 Surface Water and SQT Sediment Methodology Data were analyzed by the following methods:

Select Total Metals by USEPA SW-846 Method 6020 and 7470A/7471A. Total Hardness by SM18 2340B. Total Suspended Solids (TSS) by SM20 2540D. Total Organic Solids (TOC) by SM20 5310B. Target Compound List (TLC) Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) SW-846 8260B. TCL Sem-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) SW-846 8270C. TCL Pesticides SW-846 8081A. Percent Solids by SM20 2540G.

Acid Volatile Sulfide/Simultaneously Extracted Metals (AVS/SEM) by USEPA AVS and USEPA SEM.



C0F180512-001 PE-SW-07 6/16/2010 Metals, Hardness, TSS C0F180512-002 PE-SW-07-DIS 6/16/2010 Metals C0F180512-003 PE-SW-08 6/16/2010 Metals, Hardness, TSS C0F180512-004 PE-SW-08-DIS 6/16/2010 Metals C0F180512-005 PE-SW-09 6/16/2010 Metals, Hardness, TSS C0F180512-006 PE-SW-09-DIS 6/16/2010 Metals C0F180512-007 PE-SW-FBLK-02-DIS 6/16/2010 Metals



C0F180512-008 PE-SED-FBLK-02 6/15/2010 Metals

C0F180512-009 PE-SED-FBLK-03 6/16/2010 Metals, TOC, VOCs, SVOCs, Pesticides

C0F180512-010 TRIP BLANK --- VOCs C0F180512-011 PE-SQT-08 6/17/2010 AVS/SEM, % Solids C0F180512-012 PE-SQT-07 6/17/2010 AVS/SEM, % Solids C0F180512-013 PE-SQT-04 6/17/2010 AVS/SEM, % Solids

C0F180512-014 PE-SQT-SD-03 6/17/2010 VOCs, SVOCs, Sulfate, Sulfide

C0F180512-015 PE-SED-FBLK-04 6/17/2010 VOCs, SVOCs, Metals, TOC

Validation Overview Data have been validated using the specifics of the analytical methods listed above. Data qualifiers have been applied using the requirements as specified in USEPA Region 2 Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) #HW-2: Validation of Metals for the CLP based on SOW ILM05.3 (September 2006), SOP #HW-22: Validation of Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS, (October 2006), SOP #HW-24: Validation of Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS, (October 2006), SOP #HW-44: Validation of Pesticide Compounds by GC, (October 2006), and the QAPP. The following qualifiers may be applied as a result of data validation:



Sample Sample



(final flag) PE-SED-FBLK-03 6/16/2010 VOCs Acetone J PE-SED-FBLK-03 6/16/2010 VOCs Bromomethane UJ PE-SED-FBLK-03 6/16/2010 SVOCs 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol UJ PE-SED-FBLK-03 6/16/2010 Pesticides delta-BHC R PE-SED-FBLK-03 6/16/2010 Pesticides Endrin aldehyde UJ


Sample Sample



(final flag) PE-SED-FBLK-04 6/17/2010 VOCs Acetone J PE-SED-FBLK-04 6/17/2010 VOCs Bromomethane UJ PE-SED-FBLK-04 6/17/2010 SVOCs 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol UJ

TRIP BLANK --- VOCs Bromomethane UJ







PE-SED-FBLK-02 6/15/2010 Total Metals Calcium U (100) PE-SQT-08 6/17/2010 SEM Cadmium J PE-SQT-08 6/17/2010 SEM Nickel J PE-SQT-08 6/17/2010 SEM Lead J PE-SQT-08 6/17/2010 SEM Zinc J PE-SQT-07 6/17/2010 SEM Cadmium J PE-SQT-07 6/17/2010 SEM Nickel J PE-SQT-07 6/17/2010 SEM Lead J PE-SQT-07 6/17/2010 SEM Zinc J PE-SQT-04 6/17/2010 SEM Cadmium J PE-SQT-04 6/17/2010 SEM Nickel J PE-SQT-04 6/17/2010 SEM Lead J PE-SQT-04 6/17/2010 SEM Zinc J

PE-SED-FBLK-04 6/17/2010 Total Metals Calcium U (100) Major Deficiencies: Pesticides by SW-846 Method 8081A:

Sample PE-SED-FBLK-03 displayed dual column imprecision greater than the control limit (i.e., 25%) for delta-BHC at 1,083%. The associated positive detection was qualified as “R”, for rejected.


Field blank sample PE-SW-FBLK-02-DIS displayed positive detections for copper and zinc at 0.26 g/L and 0.99 g/L, respectively. Associated positive detections less than the RL were qualified as “U”.


The method blank sample analyzed in conjunction with preparation batch 0171016 displayed a positive detection for calcium at 31.5 g/L. Associated positive detections less than the RL were qualified as “U”.

Simultaneously Extracted Metals by USEPA SEM: The serial dilution relative percent difference (RPD) associated with sample batch 0176024 was greater than the control limit (i.e., 10%) for cadmium, lead, nickel, and zinc at 10.3%, 12.8%, 13.9%, and 13.7%, respectively. The associated sample results were positive detections and were qualified as “J”. VOCs by SW-846 Method 8260B: The continuing calibration analyzed on 6/22/2010 at 14:32 displayed percent deviations (%Ds) greater than the control limit with negative biases for bromomethane at 22.7% and acetone at 25.7%. The associated positive detections were qualified as “J” and non-detects were qualified “UJ”. The continuing calibration analyzed on 6/22/2010 at 17:07 displayed a %D greater than the control limit with a negative bias for bromomethane at 22.4%. The associated sample results were non-detect and were qualified as “UJ”. In addition, the %D for acetone was greater than the control limit with a positive bias at 22.0%. The associated positive detections were qualified as “J”. SVOCs by SW-846 Method 8270C: The continuing calibration analyzed on 6/24/2010 at 09:56 displayed a %D greater than the control limit (i.e., 20%) with a negative bias for 4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol at 22.0%. The associated sample results were non-detect and were qualified as “UJ”. Pesticides by SW-846 Method 8081A: The continuing calibration analyzed on 6/23/2010 at 01:26 displayed %Ds greater than the control limit (i.e., 20%) with negative biases on the front and rear chromatography columns for endrin aldehyde at 27.2% and 20.8%, respectively. The associated sample result was non-detect and was qualified as “UJ”.


Field blank sample PE-SED-FBLK-03 displayed a positive detection for mercury at 0.040 g/L. There were no sediment samples collected on 6/16/2010 reported with this SDG; no qualification was required.


Field blank sample PE-SED-FBLK-02 displayed positive detections for calcium, copper, magnesium, lead, and zinc at 27.7g/L, 0.34g/L, 7.8g/L, 0.12g/L, and 2.3g/L, respectively.. There were no sediment samples collected on 6/15/2010 reported with this SDG; no qualification was required. Field blank sample PE-SED-FBLK-04 displayed positive detections for calcium, copper, magnesium, lead, and zinc at 22.3g/L, 0.64g/L, 3.6g/L, 0.10g/L, and 2.1g/L, respectively. There were no sediment samples collected on 6/17/2010 that were analyzed for total metals; no qualification was required. The method blank analyzed in conjunction with preparation batch 0173173 displayed a positive detection for mercury at 0.039g/L. The associated sample results were non-detect; no qualification was required. Simultaneously Extracted Metals by USEPA SEM: Spiked sample PE-SQT-08 displayed a matrix spike recovery less than the lower control limit (i.e., 75%) for lead at 58%. In addition, the matrix spike/spike duplicate relative percent difference was greater than the control limit (i.e., 20%) at 21%. The sample results were previously qualified on the basis of serial dilution anomalies; no further action was required. The method blank sample associated with preparation batch 0176024 displayed positive detections for copper, nickel, and zinc at 0.00088 umoles/gm, 0.0030 umoles/gm, and 0.023 umoles/gm. The associated sample results were greater than 10X the blank concentrations; no qualification was required. VOCs by SW-846 Method 8260B: The trip blank sample displayed a positive detection for carbon disulfide at 0.43 g/L. The associated investigative samples were not reported with this SDG; no qualification was required. Field blank samples PE-SED-FBLK-03 and PE-SED-FBLK-04 displayed positive detections for acetone at 4.8 g/L and 7.0 g/L, respectively; carbon disulfide at 0.32 g/L and 0.34 g/L, respectively; and toluene at 0.78 g/L and 0.46 g/L, respectively. The associated investigative samples were not reported with this SDG; no qualification was required.

SVOCs by SW-846 Method 8270C: The matrix spike duplicate associated with sample batch 0173110 displayed recoveries less than the lower control limits for pyrene and 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether at 34% and 37%, respectively. Data are not qualified on the basis of matrix spike duplicate recoveries alone.


Pesticides by SW-846 Method 8081A: The continuing calibrations analyzed on 6/23/2010 at 07:42 displayed a %D greater than the control limit with a negative bias for endrin aldehyde at 20.9%. Sample results were previously qualified on the basis of continuing calibration anomalies; no further action was required. Field blank sample PE-SED-FBLK-03 displayed a positive detection for delta-BHC at 0.22 g/L. The associated investigative samples were not reported with this SDG; no qualification was required.

Comments: Sulfide and sulfate results were not reported with this SDG.


Signed:

Emily Strake




FWIA Step IIC Sampling – June 2010 Laboratory: Test America Laboratories, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA SDG: C0F190477 SWMU 35 Soils Methodology Data were analyzed by the following methods:




C0F190477-001 PE-35-SO-01 6/18/2010 Metals, %M C0F190477-002 PE-35-SO-02 6/18/2010 Metals, %M C0F190477-003 PE-35-SO-03 6/18/2010 Metals, %M C0F190477-004 PE-35-SO-03 DUP 6/18/2010 Metals, %M C0F190477-005 PE-35-SO-04 6/18/2010 Metals, %M C0F190477-006 PE-35-SO-05 6/18/2010 Metals, %M C0F190477-007 PE-SO-FBLK-01 6/18/2010 Metals, %M


R – Result is considered unusable due to a major quality control anomaly. U – Result is non-detect to due to the presence of blank contamination.


J – Result is estimated due to a minor quality control anomaly. UJ – Non-detect result (reporting limit) is estimated due to a minor quality control


Sample Sample



(final flag) PE-35-SO-01 6/18/2010 Metals Arsenic J PE-35-SO-01 6/18/2010 Metals Copper J PE-35-SO-01 6/18/2010 Metals Antimony J PE-35-SO-02 6/18/2010 Metals Arsenic J PE-35-SO-02 6/18/2010 Metals Copper J PE-35-SO-02 6/18/2010 Metals Antimony J PE-35-SO-03 6/18/2010 Metals Arsenic J PE-35-SO-03 6/18/2010 Metals Copper J PE-35-SO-03 6/18/2010 Metals Lead J PE-35-SO-03 6/18/2010 Metals Antimony J

PE-35-SO-03 DUP 6/18/2010 Metals Arsenic J PE-35-SO-03 DUP 6/18/2010 Metals Copper J PE-35-SO-03 DUP 6/18/2010 Metals Lead J PE-35-SO-03 DUP 6/18/2010 Metals Antimony J

PE-35-SO-04 6/18/2010 Metals Arsenic J PE-35-SO-04 6/18/2010 Metals Copper J PE-35-SO-04 6/18/2010 Metals Antimony J PE-35-SO-05 6/18/2010 Metals Arsenic J PE-35-SO-05 6/18/2010 Metals Copper J PE-35-SO-05 6/18/2010 Metals Antimony J

PE-SO-FBLK-01 6/18/2010 Metals Antimony U (2.0) Major Deficiencies: No major deficiencies were identified. Minor Deficiencies: Metals by USEPA SW-846 Method 6020 and 7471A:

The method blank analyzed in conjunction with preparation batch 0173368 displayed a positive detection greater than the MDL but less than the RL for antimony at 0.34 mg/kg. Associated positive detections less than the RL were qualified as “U”.


The method blank analyzed in conjunction with preparation batch 0173375 displayed positive detections greater than the MDL but less than the RL for antimony at 0.020 mg/kg and chromium at 0.016 mg/kg. Associated positive detections greater than the RL but less than 10X the blank concentration were qualified as “J”. Matrix spike/spike duplicate (MS/SD) sample PE-35-SO-02 displayed recoveries less than the lower control limit (i.e., 75%) for antimony at 36% and 38%, respectively; arsenic at 57% and 72%, respectively; and for copper at 63% and 68%, respectively. The associated sample results were positive detections and were qualified as “J”. Field duplicate and parent sample pair PE-35-SO-03 and PE-35-SO-03 DUP displayed a relative percent difference greater than the control limit (i.e., 35%) for lead at 37.3%. The associated positive detections were qualified as “J”.


The SD recovery for barium associated with spiked sample PE-35-SO-02 was greater than the upper control limit at 130%. The MS was within control; no qualification was required. The MS recovery for cobalt associated with spiked sample PE-35-SO-02 was less than the lower control limit at 70%. The SD was within control; no qualification was required. The field blank sample displayed positive detections for barium, cobalt, chromium, copper, lead, antimony, and zinc. The associated investigative sample results were greater than 10X the blank concentrations or non-detect; no qualification was required.




Signed:

Emily Strake




FWIA Step IIC Sampling – June 2010 Laboratory: Test America Laboratories, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA SDG: C0F300551 Small Mammal Tissue Methodology Data were analyzed by the following methods:




C0F300551-001 PE-S1-SMTIS-INDV-01 6/22/2010 Metals, %M C0F300551-002 PE-S1-SMTIS-INDV-02 6/22/2010 Metals, %M C0F300551-003 PE-S1-SMTIS-INDV-03 6/23/2010 Metals, %M C0F300551-004 PE-S1-SMTIS-INDV-04 6/24/2010 Metals, %M C0F300551-005 PE-N3-SMTIS-INDV-01 6/23/2010 Metals, %M C0F300551-006 PE-N3-SMTIS-INDV-02 6/23/2010 Metals, %M C0F300551-007 PE-N3-SMTIS-INDV-03 6/24/2010 Metals, %M C0F300551-008 PE-N3-SMTIS-INDV-04 6/24/2010 Metals, %M C0F300551-009 PE-N3-SMTIS-INDV-05 6/24/2010 Metals, %M C0F300551-010 PE-N2-SMTIS-INDV-01 6/22/2010 Metals, %M C0F300551-011 PE-N2-SMTIS-INDV-02 6/22/2010 Metals, %M C0F300551-012 PE-N2-SMTIS-INDV-03 6/22/2010 Metals, %M C0F300551-013 PE-N2-SMTIS-INDV-04 6/23/2010 Metals, %M C0F300551-014 PE-N2-SMTIS-INDV-05 6/24/2010 Metals, %M C0F300551-015 PE-S2-SMTIS-INDV-01 6/24/2010 Metals, %M C0F300551-016 PE-S2-SMTIS-INDV-02 6/24/2010 Metals, %M C0F300551-017 PE-S3-SMTIS-INDV-01 6/24/2010 Metals, %M C0F300551-018 PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-01 6/22/2010 Metals, %M C0F300551-019 PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-02 6/22/2010 Metals, %M C0F300551-020 PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-03 6/22/2010 Metals, %M C0F300551-021 PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-04 6/22/2010 Metals, %M



C0F300551-022 PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-05 6/22/2010 Metals, %M C0F300551-025 PE-N3-SMTIS-INDV-01 DUP 6/23/2010 Metals, %M C0F300551-026 PE-S3-SMTIS-INDV-01 DUP 6/24/2010 Metals, %M C0F300551-027 Equipment Blank 8/12/2010 Metals, %M




Sample Sample



(final flag) PE-S1-SMTIS-INDV-01 6/22/2010 Metals Antimony U (0.18) PE-S1-SMTIS-INDV-01 6/22/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-S1-SMTIS-INDV-02 6/22/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-S1-SMTIS-INDV-03 6/23/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-S1-SMTIS-INDV-04 6/24/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-N3-SMTIS-INDV-01 6/23/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-N3-SMTIS-INDV-02 6/23/2010 Metals Antimony U (0.17) PE-N3-SMTIS-INDV-02 6/23/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-N3-SMTIS-INDV-03 6/24/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-N3-SMTIS-INDV-04 6/24/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-N3-SMTIS-INDV-05 6/24/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-N2-SMTIS-INDV-01 6/22/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-N2-SMTIS-INDV-02 6/22/2010 Metals Selenium J PE-N2-SMTIS-INDV-02 6/22/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-N2-SMTIS-INDV-03 6/22/2010 Metals Chromium J


Sample Sample



(final flag) PE-N2-SMTIS-INDV-03 6/22/2010 Metals Selenium J PE-N2-SMTIS-INDV-03 6/22/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-N2-SMTIS-INDV-04 6/23/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-N2-SMTIS-INDV-04 6/23/2010 Metals Selenium J PE-N2-SMTIS-INDV-04 6/23/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-N2-SMTIS-INDV-05 6/24/2010 Metals Selenium J PE-N2-SMTIS-INDV-05 6/24/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-S2-SMTIS-INDV-01 6/24/2010 Metals Selenium J PE-S2-SMTIS-INDV-01 6/24/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-S2-SMTIS-INDV-02 6/24/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-S2-SMTIS-INDV-02 6/24/2010 Metals Selenium J PE-S2-SMTIS-INDV-02 6/24/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-S3-SMTIS-INDV-01 6/24/2010 Metals Cadmium J PE-S3-SMTIS-INDV-01 6/24/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-S3-SMTIS-INDV-01 6/24/2010 Metals Selenium J PE-S3-SMTIS-INDV-01 6/24/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-01 6/22/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-01 6/22/2010 Metals Selenium J PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-01 6/22/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-02 6/22/2010 Metals Cadmium J PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-02 6/22/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-02 6/22/2010 Metals Selenium J PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-02 6/22/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-03 6/22/2010 Metals Cadmium J PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-03 6/22/2010 Metals Selenium J PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-03 6/22/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-04 6/22/2010 Metals Cadmium J PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-04 6/22/2010 Metals Selenium J PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-04 6/22/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-05 6/22/2010 Metals Cadmium J PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-05 6/22/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-05 6/22/2010 Metals Selenium J PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-05 6/22/2010 Metals Zinc J

PE-N3-SMTIS-INDV-01 DUP 6/23/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-N3-SMTIS-INDV-01 DUP 6/23/2010 Metals Selenium J PE-N3-SMTIS-INDV-01 DUP 6/23/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-S3-SMTIS-INDV-01 DUP 6/24/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-S3-SMTIS-INDV-01 DUP 6/24/2010 Metals Selenium J PE-S3-SMTIS-INDV-01 DUP 6/24/2010 Metals Zinc J

Equipment Blank 8/12/2010 Metals Selenium J Equipment Blank 8/12/2010 Metals Zinc J

Major Deficiencies: No major deficiencies were identified.



The method blank analyzed in conjunction with preparation batch 0238055 displayed positive detections greater than the MDL but less than the RL for antimony at 0.009 mg/kg, chromium at 0.027 mg/kg, copper at 0.0085 mg/kg, and silver at 0.0027 mg/kg. Associated positive detections less than the RL were qualified as “U” and detections greater than the RL but less than 10X the blank concentration were qualified as “J”. The method blank analyzed in conjunction with preparation batch 0238057 displayed a positive detection greater than the MDL but less than the RL for chromium at 0.024 mg/kg. Associated positive detections greater than the RL but less than 10X the blank concentration were qualified as “J”. The matrix spike/spike duplicate (MS/SD) relative percent difference (RPD) associated with spiked sample PE-S1-SMTIS-COMP-04 was greater than the control limit (i.e., 20%) for zinc at 22%. The associated sample results were positive detections and were qualified as “J”. The MS/SD RPD associated with spiked sample PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-05 was greater than the control limit for selenium and zinc at 26% and 22%, respectively. The associated sample results were positive detections and were qualified as “J”.

The serial dilution percent differences (%Ds) for cadmium and zinc associated with sample batch 0238057 were greater than the control limit (i.e., 10%) at 24.9% and 11.0%, respectively. The associated positive detections were qualified as “J”. Field duplicate and parent sample pair PE-N3-SMTIS-INDV-02 and PE-N3-SMTIS-INDV-02 DUP displayed a RPD greater than the control limit (i.e., 35%) for chromium at 38.3%. The associated positive detections were qualified as “J”. Field duplicate and parent sample pair PE-S3-SMTIS-INDV-01 and PE-S3-SMTIS-INDV-01 DUP displayed a RPD greater than the control limit for chromium at 40%. The associated positive detections were qualified as “J”. The equipment blank sample displayed positive detections for chromium, copper, selenium, and zinc at 0.38 mg/kg, 0.17 mg/kg, 0.094 mg/kg, and 0.65 mg/kg, respectively. Positive sample results less than 10X the blank concentration were qualified as “J”.


The MS recovery for chromium associated with spiked sample PE-S1-SMTIS-INDV-04 was less than the lower control limit at 73%. The SD was within


control; no qualification was required. The MS recovery for selenium associated with spiked sample PE-N1-SMTIS-INDV-05 was less than the lower control limit at 63%. The SD was within control; no qualification was required.

The continuing calibration blank analyzed on 8/26/2010 at 09:21 displayed a negative detection for mercury at -0.1 g/L. The associated sample results were greater than 10X the blank concentration; no qualification was required.

Comments: Small mammal tissue samples were sent to Aquatec Biological Services, Inc. in

Willston, VT for homogenization and were returned to Test America on 8/20/2010 and 8/25/2010. Upon arrival at Test America, the sample coolers were determined to be at ambient temperature. On the basis of professional judgment, sample quality for metal analytes was not impacted by temperature.


Signed:

Emily Strake




FWIA Step IIC Sampling – June 2010 Laboratory: Test America Laboratories, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA SDG: C0F300566r Earthworm Composite Tissue Methodology Data were analyzed by the following methods:




C0F300566-001 PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-01 6/25/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-002 PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/25/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-003 PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-03 6/25/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-004 PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-04 6/25/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-005 PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-006 PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-01 6/24/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-007 PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/24/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-008 PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/24/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-009 PE-N1-EWTIS-COMP-01 6/24/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-010 PE-N1-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/24/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-011 PE-N1-EWTIS-COMP-03 6/24/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-012 PE-N1-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-013 PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-03 6/25/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-014 PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-04 6/25/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-015 PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-016 PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-03 6/25/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-017 PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-04 6/25/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-018 PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-019 PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-01 6/24/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-020 PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/24/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-021 PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-03 6/24/2010 Metals, %M



C0F300566-022 PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-04 6/24/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-023 PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/24/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-024 PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-02 DUP 6/24/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-025 PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-05 DUP 6/25/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-026 PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/25/2010 Metals, %M C0F300566-027 PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-01 6/25/2010 Metals, %M




Sample Sample



(final flag) PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-01 6/25/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-01 6/25/2010 Metals Lead J PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-01 6/25/2010 Metals Antimony U (0.20) PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-01 6/25/2010 Metals Mercury J PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/25/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/25/2010 Metals Lead J PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/25/2010 Metals Antimony U (0.20) PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/25/2010 Metals Mercury J PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-03 6/25/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-03 6/25/2010 Metals Lead J PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-03 6/25/2010 Metals Antimony U (0.20) PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-03 6/25/2010 Metals Mercury J PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-04 6/25/2010 Metals Chromium J


Sample Sample



(final flag) PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-04 6/25/2010 Metals Lead J PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-04 6/25/2010 Metals Antimony U (0.20) PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-04 6/25/2010 Metals Mercury J PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals Lead J PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals Antimony U (0.20) PE-S3-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals Mercury J PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-01 6/24/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-01 6/24/2010 Metals Lead J PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-01 6/24/2010 Metals Mercury J PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/24/2010 Metals Arsenic J PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/24/2010 Metals Cobalt J PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/24/2010 Metals Chromium U (0.20) PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/24/2010 Metals Copper J PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/24/2010 Metals Lead J PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/24/2010 Metals Selenium J PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/24/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/24/2010 Metals Mercury J PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/24/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/24/2010 Metals Lead J PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/24/2010 Metals Antimony U (0.20) PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/24/2010 Metals Mercury J PE-N1-EWTIS-COMP-01 6/24/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-N1-EWTIS-COMP-01 6/24/2010 Metals Lead J PE-N1-EWTIS-COMP-01 6/24/2010 Metals Antimony U (0.20) PE-N1-EWTIS-COMP-01 6/24/2010 Metals Mercury J PE-N1-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/24/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-N1-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/24/2010 Metals Lead J PE-N1-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/24/2010 Metals Antimony U (0.20) PE-N1-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/24/2010 Metals Mercury J PE-N1-EWTIS-COMP-03 6/24/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-N1-EWTIS-COMP-03 6/24/2010 Metals Lead J PE-N1-EWTIS-COMP-03 6/24/2010 Metals Mercury J PE-N1-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-N1-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals Lead J PE-N1-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals Antimony U (0.20) PE-N1-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals Mercury J PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-03 6/25/2010 Metals Chromium U (0.20) PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-03 6/25/2010 Metals Lead J PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-03 6/25/2010 Metals Antimony U (0.20) PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-03 6/25/2010 Metals Mercury J PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-04 6/25/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-04 6/25/2010 Metals Lead J PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-04 6/25/2010 Metals Antimony U (0.20) PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-04 6/25/2010 Metals Mercury J PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals Chromium U (0.20)


Sample Sample



(final flag) PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals Lead J PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals Antimony U (0.20) PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals Mercury J PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-03 6/25/2010 Metals Chromium U (0.20) PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-03 6/25/2010 Metals Lead J PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-03 6/25/2010 Metals Antimony U (0.20) PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-03 6/25/2010 Metals Mercury J PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-04 6/25/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-04 6/25/2010 Metals Lead J PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-04 6/25/2010 Metals Antimony U (0.20) PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-04 6/25/2010 Metals Mercury J PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals Barium J PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals Cobalt J PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals Copper J PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals Lead J PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals Antimony U (0.20) PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals Selenium J PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/25/2010 Metals Mercury J PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-01 6/24/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-01 6/24/2010 Metals Lead J PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-01 6/24/2010 Metals Antimony U (0.20) PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-01 6/24/2010 Metals Mercury J PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/24/2010 Metals Chromium U (0.20) PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/24/2010 Metals Lead J PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/24/2010 Metals Antimony U (0.20) PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/24/2010 Metals Mercury J PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-03 6/24/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-03 6/24/2010 Metals Mercury R PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-04 6/24/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-04 6/24/2010 Metals Mercury R PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/24/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-05 6/24/2010 Metals Mercury R

PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-02 DUP 6/24/2010 Metals Arsenic J PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-02 DUP 6/24/2010 Metals Cobalt J PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-02 DUP 6/24/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-02 DUP 6/24/2010 Metals Selenium J PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-02 DUP 6/24/2010 Metals Zinc J PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-02 DUP 6/24/2010 Metals Mercury R PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-05 DUP 6/25/2010 Metals Barium J PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-05 DUP 6/25/2010 Metals Cobalt J PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-05 DUP 6/25/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-05 DUP 6/25/2010 Metals Copper J PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-05 DUP 6/25/2010 Metals Lead J PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-05 DUP 6/25/2010 Metals Selenium J PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-05 DUP 6/25/2010 Metals Mercury R


Sample Sample



(final flag) PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/25/2010 Metals Chromium U (0.20) PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-02 6/25/2010 Metals Mercury R PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-01 6/25/2010 Metals Chromium J PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-01 6/25/2010 Metals Mercury R

Major Deficiencies: Metals by USEPA SW-846 Method 6020 and 7471A:

Matrix spike/spike duplicate (MS/SD) sample PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-05 did not recover (i.e., 0%) for mercury. The associated sample results were qualified as “R”, for rejected.


The method blank analyzed in conjunction with preparation batch 191035 displayed positive detections greater than the MDL but less than the RL for antimony at 0.026 mg/kg, chromium at 0.058 mg/kg, copper at 0.046 mg/kg, lead at 0.0036 mg/kg, and zinc at 0.029 mg/kg. Associated positive detections less than the RL were qualified as “U” and detections greater than the RL but less than 10X the blank concentration were qualified as “J”. The method blank analyzed in conjunction with preparation batch 191036 displayed positive detections greater than the MDL but less than the RL for chromium at 0.019 mg/kg and selenium at 0.070 mg/kg. Associated positive detections less than the RL were qualified as “U” and detections greater than the RL but less than 10X the blank concentration were qualified as “J”. The MS/SD relative percent difference (RPD) associated with spiked sample PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-04 was greater than the control limit (i.e., 20%) for lead at 48%. The associated sample results were positive detections and were qualified as “J”. The MS/SD recoveries for mercury associated with spiked sample PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-04 were less than the lower control limit (i.e., 75%) for mercury at 49% and 27%, respectively. The associated sample results were positive detections and were qualified as “J”. The serial dilution percent differences (%Ds) for chromium associated with sample batches 0191035 and 0191036 were greater than the control limit (i.e., 10%) at 45.3% and 11.8%, respectively. The associated positive detections were qualified as “J”, unless previously qualified “U” for blank contamination.


Field duplicate and parent sample pair PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-02 and PE-N2-EWTIS-COMP-02 DUP displayed RPDs greater than the control limit (i.e., 35%) for arsenic, cobalt, selenium, zinc, and mercury at 46.9%, 41.2%, 87.4%, 37.2%, and 60%, respectively. The associated positive detections were qualified as “J”. Field duplicate and parent sample pair PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-05 and PE-S2-EWTIS-COMP-05 DUP displayed RPDs greater than the control limit for cobalt, copper, lead, and mercury at 40%, 154.5%, 52.5%, and 47.1%, respectively. The associated positive detections were qualified as “J”. In addition, the absolute difference for barium, chromium, and selenium was greater than the control limit (i.e., 2X the RL) at 3.89 mg/kg, 0.71 mg/kg, and 3.9 mg/kg, respectively. The associated sample results were positive detections and were qualified as “J”.


The SD recovery for lead associated with spiked sample PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-04 was less than the lower control limit at 8.2%. The MS was within control; no qualification was required. The MS recovery for zinc associated with spiked sample PE-S1-EWTIS-COMP-04 was less than the lower control limit at 65%. The SD was within control; no qualification was required. The MS recovery for arsenic associated with spiked sample PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-05 was less than the lower control limit at 72%. The SD was within control; no qualification was required. The MS recovery for zinc associated with spiked sample PE-N3-EWTIS-COMP-05 was greater than the upper control limit at 141%. The SD was within control; no qualification was required. The continuing calibration blank analyzed on 7/12/2010 at 09:18 displayed a negative detection for mercury at -0.1 g/L. The associated sample results were greater than 10X the blank concentration; no qualification was required.




Signed:

Emily Strake

Hercules Inc. Site - Fish and Wildlife Impact Analysis ... · Table 13 Fish Community...

Documents

Transcript of Hercules Inc. Site - Fish and Wildlife Impact Analysis ... · Table 13 Fish Community...